From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stephen Warren Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2016 15:41:51 -0600 Subject: [U-Boot] [RFC PATCH 1/2] add block device cache In-Reply-To: <56EB2290.30705@nelint.com> 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> <56EB2290.30705@nelint.com> Message-ID: <56EB249F.50706@wwwdotorg.org> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de On 03/17/2016 03:33 PM, Eric Nelson wrote: > 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 >> >> 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? Conceptually I think it sounds OK provided it yields some demonstrable improvement across a variety of use-cases, and the design doesn't prevent it addressing obvious other cases it should address. You probably want to Cc (or hope they see this and provide feedback anyway) a few other people such as Tom Rini, Simon Glass, Marek Vasut, etc.