Re: Questions about FUSE_NOTIFY_INVAL_ENTRY

[Jim Harris <jiharris@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Aug 27, 2025, at 6:05 AM, Miklos Szeredi <miklos@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

External email: Use caution opening links or attachments


On Wed, 20 Aug 2025 at 22:42, Jim Harris <jiharris@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Aug 20, 2025, at 1:55 AM, Miklos Szeredi <miklos@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

<snip>

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

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature