tentatively merged this patch (and the 3 earlier ones are already in
for-next) into cifs-2.6.git for-next pending testing.
Did minor whitespace cleanup
On Tue, May 10, 2022 at 7:41 PM Leif Sahlberg <lsahlber@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> 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
> >
>
--
Thanks,
Steve
