Re: [PATCH/RFC] sunrpc/cache: make cache flushing more reliable.

[Neil Brown <neilb@suse.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 995 bytes --]

"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org> writes:

>> 
>> I'll resend it people are otherwise happy.
>
> I'm otherwise happy!  Looks like a reasonable approach.
>
> (The one thing I wonder is whether it would be clearer to outright fail
> writes that attempt to create already-expired cache entries.
>
> But I think that's an unimportant corner case really.  And if there are
> existing cases where that's happening then perhaps it's less disruptive
> just to let them expire a second later rathern than to introduce a new
> error.)

I hadn't thought about.  There is often a good case for failing a
meaningless value rather than silently doing something different.
Were I creating a new interface, I would probably do that.
But revising an old interface that doesn't currently return an error...
I agree with you that it is likely less disruptive to not introduce a
new error.  Thanks for asking the question.

I'll post the proper patch separately.

Thanks,
NeilBrown

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 818 bytes --]