2010/12/6 Suresh Jayaraman <sjayaraman@xxxxxxx>: > On 12/01/2010 10:09 PM, Pavel Shilovsky wrote: >> 2010/12/1 Suresh Jayaraman <sjayaraman@xxxxxxx>: >>> >>> I just applied your patches on my test box, but I see that the fscache >>> integration is not done, yet. Am I seeing older version of patches? >> >> What do you mean for "fscache integration"? I changed all >> invalidate_inode_* calls to cifs_invalidate_mapping or setting >> invalid_mapping flag - so, it seems to me that I don't miss places >> where I affect cache but don't aware of fscache >> (cifs_invalidate_mapping process fscache as well). Of course, it can >> be - so, could you point me to such places, please? >> > > Sorry about the delay in getting back. You're right the patches are > taking care of relinquishing the cookies wherever appropriate. > I have done some testing with both 'strictcache' and 'fsc' enabled and > so far they work as expected. The tests involve doing file operations > with fsc enabled always but strict cache enabled/disabled and watching > fscache statistics via /proc/fs/fscache/stats). I didn't encounter any > unexpected results. Thank you very much for this testing! Jeff, Suresh, as we have the good results on strict cache + fscache and reviewed patch number 1 (cifsFileInfo_put part), could you review other patches: 2) read (try #4), 3) write (try #4), 4) fsync (try #3), 5) mmap (try #3) and 6) mount option (try #2) please? -- Best regards, Pavel Shilovsky. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-cifs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
