On Tue Apr 28 2009 at 00:29:05 +0000, YAMAMOTO Takashi wrote: > >> Hmm, does this work correctly if you find the component via the > >> cache_lookup() path? > > > > Ok, I dug into this a little. Short answer: no, but ... > > > > It seems that cache_lookup() always returns false if MAKEENTRY is not set. > > However, it first does the lookup and removes the entry. Does anyone > > know why it then returns false and forces a relookup? Now in the > > case of tmpfs we always get 1 cache lookup and 2 full lookups for each > > remove/rename operation. > > because it's what ufs expects. :-)
Oh right, it wants the offset. > i introduced cache_lookup_raw for nfs, which doesn't want these behaviours. > i wanted to replace cache_lookup but some people prefered the current one. Based on a quick look it seems like tmpfs could've switched to cache_lookup_raw() when directory caching was removed.
