On Fri, 6 May 2022 at 16:21, Enzo Matsumiya <ematsumiya@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 05/04, Ronnie Sahlberg wrote:
> >+struct cached_dirents {
> >+ bool is_valid:1;
> >+ bool is_failed:1;
>
> Does it make sense to have both? Do you expect a situation where
> is_valid && is_failed happens? From the patch, I don't see such case and
> the code could be adjusted to use !is_valid where appropriate.
> But let me know if I missed something.
The reason to have both is to handle cases where we fail populating
the cache partway through readdir.
The idea is that is_valid is set once we have fully populated the
cache successfully
and is_failed is set on failure during the population of the cache and
once it is set there is no point in even trying to add new entries to
the cache.
>
> This is just a cosmetic nitpick, but other than that,
>
> Reviewed-by: Enzo Matsumiya <ematsumiya@xxxxxxx>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Enzo
