> Since zcache is now one of its use cases, I think the major > objection that remains against cleancache is its intrusiveness > -- in particular, need to change individual filesystems (even > though one liners). Changes below should help avoid these > per-fs changes and make it more self contained. Hi Nitin -- I think my reply at http://lkml.org/lkml/2010/6/22/202 adequately refutes the claim of intrusiveness (43 lines!). And FAQ #2 near the end of the original posting at http://lkml.org/lkml/2010/6/21/411 explains why the per-fs "opt-in" approach is sensible and necessary. CHRISTOPH AND ANDREW, if you disagree and your concerns have not been resolved, please speak up. Further, the maintainers of the changed filesystems have acked the very minor cleancache patches; and maintainers of other filesystems are not affected unless they choose to opt-in, whereas these other filesystems MAY be affected with your suggested changes to the patches. So I think it's just a matter of waiting for the Linux wheels to turn for a patch that (however lightly) touches a number of maintainers' code, though I would very much welcome any input on anything I can do to make those wheels turn faster. Thanks, Dan -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
