On Thu, 13 Oct 2022, Chuck Lever III wrote: > > I think I stopped at the non-list variant of rhashtable because > using rhl was more complex, and the non-list variant seemed to > work fine. There's no architectural reason either file_hashtbl > or the filecache must use the non-list variant. > > In any event, it's worth taking the trouble now to change the > nfs4_file implementation proposed here as you suggest. If you like you could leave it as-is for now and I can provide a patch to convert to rhl-tables later (won't be until late October). There is one thing I would need to understand though: why are the nfsd_files per-filehandle instead of per-inode? There is probably a good reason, but I cannot think of one. Thanks, NeilBrown
