From: Miklos S. <mi...@sz...> - 2012-07-16 10:40:06
|
Brian Foster <bf...@re...> writes: > On 07/12/2012 06:05 AM, Miklos Szeredi wrote: >> Goswin von Brederlow <gos...@we...> writes: >> >>> >>> I can't judge how much the new behaviour would break so it is hard to say. >>> But from a users perspective it is verry anoying if things suddenly stop >>> working for no aparent reason. And cache behaviour might cause silent data >>> corruption. So I would rather err on the side of caution. >>> >>> It would be nice to have it as default for filesystems that are aware (or >>> don't care) about it though. So my prefered solution would be to work >>> something out using FUSSE_USE_VERSION. Default to the legacy_cache for >>> API version 26 and lower and to the new cache for version 27 and higher. >>> Or something to the same effect. >> >> Yes. The next API update is going to be 3.0 which will mean a separate >> header file, separate library, and so on. So no need to mess with >> FUSE_USE_VERSION, just do legacy mode for 2.x and default to the new >> caching behavior for 3.0. >> > > Ok, I will enable legacy_cache by default in libfuse as mentioned > previously. With regard to 3.0, how should I reverse that default? You should make two options "something" and "no_something" and make one the default on 2.X and the other one on 3.X. I'm not sure the "legacy_cache" is the best description because "no_legacy_cache" doesn't say much about what it actually it does. > Does this separate library exist somewhere on its own or in a branch? > Thanks. Not yet. I'll open a new branch for it. Thanks, Miklos |