On 24 Apr 2023, at 21:41, Chengen Du wrote: > Hi, > > May I ask if there are any concerns or opinions regarding the > introduction of the new mount option? > If there is a more suitable solution, we can discuss it, and I can > work on implementing it. I suspect there's some weariness of mount options, we have a lot of them and they are not easily removed once implemented. Additionally, requests to add them usually can show the appropriate changes to the nfs-utils mount.nfs and man pages required. Incompleteness here may be the reason you're not hearing back from a maintainer. However, without guidance from a maintainer, you might end up doing extra work trying to meet unclear standards. There's a couple of other ways to address the access cache performance "degradation" that was introduced by the changes that other folks desperately needed for correctness. We can change nfs_access_login_time to have a module parameter modifying the behavior. The downside is this would affect every mount. We can grow a sysfs knob to change the behavior. Downside is we only have very preliminary sysfs scaffolding as of yet. However, if you want to keep pushing for the mount option, I'd suggest doing a v2 with the userspace patches, and if that gets ignored then do a "PATCH RESEND" on that a month or so before each mainline merge window. I've found that bump-replying to old patches isn't as effective at getting work merged here. I believe the maintainers want to see that you're rebasing as mainline progresses, and you have active ownership over the work to fix bugs that may follow or address other fallout from the community. Ben
