On Wed, Feb 26, 2025 at 10:30:21AM +1100, NeilBrown wrote: > On Wed, 26 Feb 2025, Jan Kara wrote: > > On Mon 24-02-25 21:20:31, Al Viro wrote: > > > It has two possible values - one for "forced lookup" entries, another > > > for the normal ones. We'd be better off with that as an explicit > > > flag anyway and in addition to that it opens some fun possibilities > > > with ->d_op and ->d_flags handling. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > FWIW I went through the patches and I like them. They look mostly > > straightforward enough to me and as good simplifications. > > > > Ditto. Nice clean-up > It might be good to document s_d_flags and particularly the value of > setting DCACHE_DONTCACHE. That flag is documented in the list of > DCACHE_ flags, but making the connection that it can usefully be put in > s_d_flags might be a step to far for many. Probably... The thing is, I'm resurrecting the DCACHE_PERSISTENT patchset (aka tree-in-dcache stuff) and that will have non-trivial interplay there. But you are right - it's probably worth documenting that thing in this series. Re documentation - I'll be posting bits and pieces of dcache docs/audit/proofs of correctness over the next few weeks; at some point we'll need to collect that into a single text, but at the moment what I've got is too disjoint for that. OTOH, we could start a WIP variant in D/f/<something> and have it augmented as we go... Not sure.
