fscache review comments, part 1

[Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>]

Just to be on the same boat, all these comments are against
http://people.redhat.com/~dhowells/nfs/nfs+fscache-16.tar.bz2

This mail is just the core-touching paches, the fscache and cachefiles
code will get a review of it's own later on.

01-ino64.diff:
	ACK

02-ino64-nfs.diff:
	Unfortunately there's a lot of broken userspace that can't deal
	with 64bit inode numbers, so you need to make the lod behaviour
	a mount option at least, probably even the default.  Given that
	we're going to run into problems like that it might make sense
	to make the option VFS-level instead of just in nfs.  (Note:
	XFS already has an option like that)

03-fsmisc.diff:
	ACK

05-release-page.diff:
	ACK, though I'd wish someone could come up with nicer names for
	read_cache_pages_invalidate_page(s).

06-block-afs.diff:
	ACK.

09-cachefiles-ia64.diff:
	ACK.  (Although I remember at some point I wanted to unify
	copy_page and copy_highpage)

11-autofs-dcache.diff:
	ACK.  Should probably go in ASAP.

12-reiserfs-dcache.diff:
	ACK.  Again should probably go in ASAP.

	Note that reiserfs_kill_sb could be written a lot nicer by
	using a local variable.

static void reiserfs_kill_sb(struct super_block *sb)
{
	struct reiserfs_sb_info *si = REISERFS_SB(s);

	if (si) {
		if (si->xattr_root) {
			d_invalidate(si->xattr_root);
			dput(si->xattr_root);
		}
		if (si->priv_root) {
			d_invalidate(si->priv_root);
			dput(si->priv_root);
		}
	}

	kill_block_super(sb);
}

13-dcache-crunch.diff:
	I know Jan has been rather unhappy with this, and I tend to agree
	to at least the code duplication part.  I wish I had time to
	look into a better way to implement the rather nice idea behind
	shrink_dcache_for_umount.
	Why is this patch required for fscache anyway?
	(and why is it last in the series then?)