lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Jun]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC][PATCH 04/10] cifs: define server-level cache index objects and register them with FS-Cache
On 06/23/2010 03:22 AM, Jeff Layton wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 20:53:18 +0530
> Suresh Jayaraman <sjayaraman@suse.de> wrote:
>
>> Define server-level cache index objects (as managed by TCP_ServerInfo structs).
>> Each server object is created in the CIFS top-level index object and is itself
>> an index into which superblock-level objects are inserted.
>>
>> Currently, the server objects are keyed by hostname.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Suresh Jayaraman <sjayaraman@suse.de>
>> ---
>> fs/cifs/Makefile | 2 +-
>> fs/cifs/cache.c | 25 +++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> fs/cifs/cifsglob.h | 3 +++
>> fs/cifs/connect.c | 4 ++++
>> fs/cifs/fscache.c | 47 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> fs/cifs/fscache.h | 12 ++++++++++++
>> 6 files changed, 92 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>> create mode 100644 fs/cifs/fscache.c
>>
>> Index: cifs-2.6/fs/cifs/Makefile
>> ===================================================================
>> --- cifs-2.6.orig/fs/cifs/Makefile
>> +++ cifs-2.6/fs/cifs/Makefile
>> @@ -12,4 +12,4 @@ cifs-$(CONFIG_CIFS_UPCALL) += cifs_spneg
>>
>> cifs-$(CONFIG_CIFS_DFS_UPCALL) += dns_resolve.o cifs_dfs_ref.o
>>
>> -cifs-$(CONFIG_CIFS_FSCACHE) += cache.o
>> +cifs-$(CONFIG_CIFS_FSCACHE) += fscache.o cache.o
>> Index: cifs-2.6/fs/cifs/cache.c
>> ===================================================================
>> --- cifs-2.6.orig/fs/cifs/cache.c
>> +++ cifs-2.6/fs/cifs/cache.c
>> @@ -51,3 +51,28 @@ void cifs_fscache_unregister(void)
>> fscache_unregister_netfs(&cifs_fscache_netfs);
>> }
>>
>> +/*
>> + * Server object currently keyed by hostname
>> + */
>> +static uint16_t cifs_server_get_key(const void *cookie_netfs_data,
>> + void *buffer, uint16_t maxbuf)
>> +{
>> + const struct TCP_Server_Info *server = cookie_netfs_data;
>> + uint16_t len = strnlen(server->hostname, sizeof(server->hostname));
>> +
>
> Would a tuple of address/family/port be a better choice here? Imagine I
> mount "foo" and then later mount "foor.bar.baz". If they are the same
> address and only the UNC differs, then you won't get the benefit of
> the cache, right?
>

Good point. I'll fix it up when I do a respin.

Thanks,

--
Suresh Jayaraman


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-06-23 07:37    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site