From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Eric Nelson <eric@nelint.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2016 14:33:04 -0700
Subject: [U-Boot] [RFC PATCH 1/2] add block device cache
In-Reply-To: <56EB1ECA.3030204@wwwdotorg.org>
References: <56E9A92F.5000205@nelint.com>
 <1458164424-15363-1-git-send-email-eric@nelint.com>
 <1458164424-15363-2-git-send-email-eric@nelint.com>
 <56EB1ECA.3030204@wwwdotorg.org>
Message-ID: <56EB2290.30705@nelint.com>
List-Id: <u-boot.lists.denx.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: u-boot@lists.denx.de

Thanks for the review(s) Stephen.

On 03/17/2016 02:16 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 03/16/2016 03:40 PM, Eric Nelson wrote:
>> Signed-off-by: Eric Nelson <eric@nelint.com>
> 
> A patch description would be useful here; the cover letter wouldn't be
> checked in.
> 

Yeah. Please hote the RFC.

I was really hoping for some broader feedback about whether this
is a better approach than the more specialized ext4 extent cache.

If I can get an ack on the approach, I think a minimal block
device cache would support at least 2 or 4 entries, and I'd
need to be able to answer the questions from your other
response:

> Do you have any stats on how many operations this saves for typical FS operations such as:
> 
> - Partition table type identification (with various types such as MBR/DOS, GPT, ...)
> - Partition enumeration
> - Filesystem identification (with various filesystems such as FAT, ext, ...)
> - File reads 

Should I interpret this as support of a small(ish) block device cache?

Regards,


Eric