Hi, On 12/08/2020 09:37, Miklos Szeredi wrote: [snip]
b) The awarded performance boost is not warranted for the use cases it is designed for. Thanks, Miklos
This is a key point. One of the main drivers for this work is the efficiency improvement for large numbers of mounts. Ian and Karel have already provided performance measurements showing a significant benefit compared with what we have today. If you want to propose this alternative interface then you need to show that it can sustain similar levels of performance, otherwise it doesn't solve the problem. So performance numbers here would be helpful.
Also - I may have missed this earlier in the discussion, what are the atomicity guarantees with this proposal? This is the other key point for the API, so it would be good to see that clearly stated (i.e. how does one use it in combination with the notifications to provide an up to date, consistent view of the kernel's mounts)
Steve.
