On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 9:24 AM Thomas Munro wrote:
> No change yet, just posting a rebase to keep cfbot happy.
>
>
Hi, Thomas
I think that the proposed feature is pretty cool not only because it fixes
some old issues with lseek() performance and reliability, but also because
it opens the door
No change yet, just posting a rebase to keep cfbot happy.
One thing I'm wondering about is whether it'd be possible, and if so,
a good idea, to make a kind of tiny reusable cache replacement
algorithm, something modern, that can be used to kill several birds
with one stone (SLRUs, this object
On Thu, Mar 4, 2021 at 2:39 AM David Steele wrote:
> On 1/18/21 10:42 PM, 陈佳昕(步真) wrote:
> > I want to share a patch with you, I change the replacement algorithm
> > from fifo to a simple lru.
>
> What do you think of this change?
Ok, if I'm reading this right, it changes the replacement
Hi Thomas,
On 1/18/21 10:42 PM, 陈佳昕(步真) wrote:
I want to share a patch with you, I change the replacement algorithm
from fifo to a simple lru.
What do you think of this change?
Also, your patch set from [1] no longer applies (and of course this
latest patch is confusing the tester as well).
