Re: Questions about FUSE_NOTIFY_INVAL_ENTRY
From: Jim Harris <hidden>
Date: 2025-08-27 17:45:31
Also in:
kvm, linux-fsdevel
Attachments
- smime.p7s [application/pkcs7-signature] 4312 bytes
From: Jim Harris <hidden>
Date: 2025-08-27 17:45:31
Also in:
kvm, linux-fsdevel
On Aug 27, 2025, at 6:05 AM, Miklos Szeredi [off-list ref] wrote: External email: Use caution opening links or attachments On Wed, 20 Aug 2025 at 22:42, Jim Harris <jiharris@nvidia.com <mailto:jiharris@nvidia.com>> wrote:quoted
quoted
On Aug 20, 2025, at 1:55 AM, Miklos Szeredi [off-list ref] wrote:
<snip>
quoted
quoted
The other question is whether something more efficient should be added. E.g. FUSE_NOTIFY_SHRINK_LOOKUP_CACHE with a num_drop argument that tells fuse to try to drop this many unused entries?Absolutely something like this would be more efficient. Using FUSE_NOTIFY_INVAL_ENTRY requires saving filenames which isn’t ideal.Okay, I suspect an interface that supplies an array of nodeid's would be best, as it would give control to the filesystem which inodes it wants to give up, but would allow batching the operation and would not require supplying the name.
I agree, this would be the perfect interface. Better to let the filesystem decide which inodes it wants to give up.
Will work on this.
Thanks! -Jim