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    [W:0.024 / U:91.480 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site