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.

Reply via email to