From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mx1.suse.de ([195.135.220.2]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.68 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1KPcCc-0002bZ-Bt for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Sun, 03 Aug 2008 11:56:46 +0000 From: Neil Brown To: "J. Bruce Fields" Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2008 21:56:34 +1000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <18581.40178.976747.769343@notabene.brown> Subject: Re: [RFC] Reinstate NFS exportability for JFFS2. In-Reply-To: message from J. Bruce Fields on Saturday August 2 References: <18578.21997.529551.676627@notabene.brown> <1217551230.3719.15.camel@shinybook.infradead.org> <76bd70e30807311753m2785c6d3kd82edd1fe8b5f8b7@mail.gmail.com> <1217552437.3719.30.camel@shinybook.infradead.org> <76bd70e30807311831p771d0f1eia3e303bd84919422@mail.gmail.com> <1217597759.3454.356.camel@pmac.infradead.org> <1217598976.3454.359.camel@pmac.infradead.org> <76bd70e30808010905j3010a6bfy534c068a662d348d@mail.gmail.com> <1217607571.3454.417.camel@pmac.infradead.org> <76bd70e30808011047u3cd0a56cg3b2d62e01afed014@mail.gmail.com> <20080802182644.GE30454@fieldses.org> Cc: linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, chucklever@gmail.com, Christoph Hellwig , linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, David Woodhouse List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Saturday August 2, bfields@fieldses.org 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