Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Tue, Dec 05, 2006 at 12:56:40AM -0500, Trond Myklebust wrote:
On Mon, 2006-12-04 at 18:59 -0600, Rob Ross wrote:
Hi all,
I don't think that the group intended that there be an opendirplus();
rather readdirplus() would simply be called instead of the usual
readdir(). We should clarify that.
Regarding Peter Staubach's comments about no one ever using the
readdirplus() call; well, if people weren't performing this workload in
the first place, we wouldn't *need* this sort of call! This call is
specifically targeted at improving "ls -l" performance on large
directories, and Sage has pointed out quite nicely how that might work.
...and we have pointed out how nicely this ignores the realities of
current caching models. There is no need for a readdirplus() system
call. There may be a need for a caching barrier, but AFAICS that is all.
I think Andreas mentioned that it is useful for clustered filesystems
that can avoid additional roundtrips this way. That alone might now
be enough reason for API additions, though. The again statlite and
readdirplus really are the most sane bits of these proposals as they
fit nicely into the existing set of APIs. The filehandle idiocy on
the other hand is way of into crackpipe land.
So other than this "lite" version of the readdirplus() call, and this
idea of making the flags indicate validity rather than accuracy, are
there other comments on the directory-related calls? I understand that
they might or might not ever make it in, but assuming they did, what
other changes would you like to see?
Thanks,
Rob
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
