On Thu, 13 Oct 2022, Chuck Lever III wrote:

I think I stopped at the non-list variant of rhashtable because
using rhl was more complex, and the non-list variant seemed to
work fine. There's no architectural reason either file_hashtbl
or the filecache must use the non-list variant.

In any event, it's worth taking the trouble now to change the
nfs4_file implementation proposed here as you suggest.

If you like you could leave it as-is for now and I can provide a patch
to convert to rhl-tables later (won't be until late October).
There is one thing I would need to understand though: why are the
nfsd_files per-filehandle instead of per-inode?  There is probably a
good reason, but I cannot think of one.

Thanks,
NeilBrown