Hmmm.... I broke the patch up as Trond stipulated - at least, I thought I
had.
In many ways this request doesn't make sense. You can't do NFS caching
without all the appropriate bits, so logically they should be one patch.
Breaking it up won't help git-bisect since the option to enable all this is
the last (or nearly last) patch.
However, I can do it (when I get back from LCA next week).
Okay. I'll update my patches to reflect this. Note, however, I've got
someone reporting a bug that seems to show otherwise. I'll have to
investigate this more next week.
I should make SteveD do that, the options was his idea:-) But I'll deal with
it.
????
If you wish, though I'd prefer to use a name that isn't like to clash with a
name that's going to appear in fs/fscache/ (or include/linux/ - I'd really
like to rename fs/nfs/fscache.h as dealing with two fscache.h's is annoying.
Supplement? I don't understand.
The reason lies is "in almost every case". It's possible to configure it
such that a server is running two separate NFS servers on different ports.
I'm going for the server side port number. Using the client side port number
would be silly.
I'll look at them.
I believe I asked Trond, but I'll check.
I've got to move, so I'll deal with the rest of your email later.
David
--