On Saturday August 2, bfields@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
> Though really I can't see any great objection to just moving xfs's hack
> up into nfsd. It may not do everything, but it seems like an
> incremental improvement.
Because it is a hack, and hacks have a tendency to hide deeper
problems, and not be ever get cleaned up and generally to become a
burden to future generations.
However if you do go down that path, can I suggest:
1/ get rid of the word "hack" throughout the code. If you think it
is sensible, make it appear sensible.
2/ drop the "retry malloc of a smaller size" thing.
In fact, you can probably use one of the set of pages that has
been reserved for the request. It is very rare that a readdir
request will be as big as the largest read.
3/ Make the new way unconditional. That gives it broader test
coverage which can only be a good thing. And what is good for the
goose is good for the gander... (not that I'm calling anyone a
goose).
But I still prefer the O_READDIRPLUS approach.
NeilBrown
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
