Dominique Martinet wrote:
> Should I submit patches to you or wait until Linus merges it next cycle
> and send them directly?
>
> I see Jeff's ceph patches are still in his tree's ceph-fscache-iter
> branch and I don't see them anywhere in your tree.
I really want them to all go in the same win
David Howells wrote on Thu, Aug 27, 2020:
> Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>
> > FYI, a giant rewrite dropping support for existing consumer is always
> > rather awkward. Is there any way you could pre-stage some infrastructure
> > changes, and then do a temporary fscache2, which could then be renamed
Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> FYI, a giant rewrite dropping support for existing consumer is always
> rather awkward. Is there any way you could pre-stage some infrastructure
> changes, and then do a temporary fscache2, which could then be renamed
> back to fscache once everyone switched over?
Tha
On 8/10/20 12:06 PM, Jeff Layton wrote:
On Mon, 2020-08-10 at 12:35 -0400, David Wysochanski wrote:
On Mon, Aug 10, 2020 at 11:48 AM David Howells wrote:
Steve French wrote:
cifs.ko also can set rsize quite small (even 1K for example, although
that will be more than 10x slower than the de
On Mon, 2020-08-10 at 12:35 -0400, David Wysochanski wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 10, 2020 at 11:48 AM David Howells wrote:
> > Steve French wrote:
> >
> > > cifs.ko also can set rsize quite small (even 1K for example, although
> > > that will be more than 10x slower than the default 4MB so hopefully no
On Mon, Aug 10, 2020 at 04:16:59PM +0100, David Howells wrote:
> Hi Linus,
>
> Can you drop the fscache rewrite pull for now. We've seem an issue in NFS
> integration and need to rework the read helper a bit. I made an assumption
> that fscache will always be able to request that the netfs perfo
On Mon, Aug 10, 2020 at 11:48 AM David Howells wrote:
>
> Steve French wrote:
>
> > cifs.ko also can set rsize quite small (even 1K for example, although
> > that will be more than 10x slower than the default 4MB so hopefully no
> > one is crazy enough to do that).
>
> You can set rsize < PAGE_SI
On Mon, Aug 10, 2020 at 10:48 AM David Howells wrote:
>
> Steve French wrote:
>
> > cifs.ko also can set rsize quite small (even 1K for example, although
> > that will be more than 10x slower than the default 4MB so hopefully no
> > one is crazy enough to do that).
>
> You can set rsize < PAGE_SI
Steve French wrote:
> cifs.ko also can set rsize quite small (even 1K for example, although
> that will be more than 10x slower than the default 4MB so hopefully no
> one is crazy enough to do that).
You can set rsize < PAGE_SIZE?
> I can't imagine an SMB3 server negotiating an rsize or wsize s
cifs.ko also can set rsize quite small (even 1K for example, although
that will be more than 10x slower than the default 4MB so hopefully no
one is crazy enough to do that). I can't imagine an SMB3 server
negotiating an rsize or wsize smaller than 64K in today's world (and
typical is 1MB to 8MB)
Hi Linus,
Can you drop the fscache rewrite pull for now. We've seem an issue in NFS
integration and need to rework the read helper a bit. I made an assumption
that fscache will always be able to request that the netfs perform a read of a
certain minimum size - but with NFS you can break that by
11 matches
Mail list logo
