From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no>
Subject: Re: NFSv4/pNFS possible POSIX I/O API standards
Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2006 00:56:40 -0500
Message-ID: <1165298200.5776.26.camel@lade.trondhjem.org>
References: <20061129094815.GE6429@schatzie.adilger.int>
	 <1164795522.7557.45.camel@imp.csi.cam.ac.uk>
	 <20061129082622.GA20285@cynthia.pants.nu>
	 <20061130092548.GA1534@infradead.org>
	 <Pine.LNX.4.62.0611300916260.8918@wtf.di.newdream.net>
	 <1164950795.5761.25.camel@lade.trondhjem.org>
	 <Pine.LNX.4.62.0611302157580.10257@wtf.di.newdream.net>
	 <1164984094.5761.86.camel@lade.trondhjem.org>
	 <20061203015203.GA5656@schatzie.adilger.int>
	 <Pine.LNX.4.62.0612021830030.31986@wtf.di.newdream.net>
	 <20061204073200.GB5637@schatzie.adilger.int>
	 <1165245336.711.176.camel@lade.trondhjem.org>
	 <4574C48A.8030007@mcs.anl.gov>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Andreas Dilger <adilger@clusterfs.com>,
	Sage Weil <sage@newdream.net>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
	Brad Boyer <flar@allandria.com>,
	Anton Altaparmakov <aia21@cam.ac.uk>,
	Gary Grider <ggrider@lanl.gov>, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
Return-path: <linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from pat.uio.no ([129.240.10.15]:47524 "EHLO pat.uio.no"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1758978AbWLEF5G (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Tue, 5 Dec 2006 00:57:06 -0500
To: Rob Ross <rross@mcs.anl.gov>
In-Reply-To: <4574C48A.8030007@mcs.anl.gov>
Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org

On Mon, 2006-12-04 at 18:59 -0600, Rob Ross wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> I don't think that the group intended that there be an opendirplus(); 
> rather readdirplus() would simply be called instead of the usual 
> readdir(). We should clarify that.
> 
> Regarding Peter Staubach's comments about no one ever using the 
> readdirplus() call; well, if people weren't performing this workload in 
> the first place, we wouldn't *need* this sort of call! This call is 
> specifically targeted at improving "ls -l" performance on large 
> directories, and Sage has pointed out quite nicely how that might work.

...and we have pointed out how nicely this ignores the realities of
current caching models. There is no need for a  readdirplus() system
call. There may be a need for a caching barrier, but AFAICS that is all.

Trond