On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 5:24 PM, Venkateswararao Jujjuri
<jvrao@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Nice explanation. I looked at NFS and realized that they also follow
> write_inode approach.
> So I think you should make it explict that this will be helpful to dotl
> also and may and TFSYNCFS
> in the future if needed. With that I ack this.
>
If this is something we really think we'll be adding back in the
future, is there someway we can conditionalize its use (default off
perhaps) so that if a particular server wanted to take advantage of
it, they could. This would seem preferable to just backing out the
whole patch.
Another aspect which I didn't consider when we added it is what it
would do to older versions of the servers which didn't have TFSYNCFS
-- maybe this is a good case study for the .L graceful degredation
plan we had talked about in the past where you try a tfsyncfs and if
the server returns an error that it doesn't implement it you back off
to another solution.
Thoughts? Sorry if I'm being dense -- still adjusting to new sleep
schedule with new baby and spent 16 hours yesterday cranking out two
publication submissions, so folks will have to bear with me for a bit.
-eric
--
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
