On Wed, May 11, 2022 at 8:57 AM Enzo Matsumiya <ematsumiya@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi Ronnie,
>
> On 05/10, Ronnie Sahlberg wrote:
> >+struct cached_dirents {
> >+ bool is_valid:1;
> >+ bool is_failed:1;
>
> Just as I commented in the other thread, having both fields above confuses me.
> Shouldn't using is_valid/!is_valid be enough?
We need two because semantically there are three states we need to describe:
1, we have successfully cached all entries and cache is valid
2, we are in the process of building the cache, and the cache might
eventually become complete and valid
3, we are in the process of building the cache, but there has been a
failure and the cache will never be complete or valid
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Enzo
>
