> On Aug 27, 2025, at 6:05 AM, Miklos Szeredi <mik...@szeredi.hu> wrote: > > External email: Use caution opening links or attachments > > > On Wed, 20 Aug 2025 at 22:42, Jim Harris <jihar...@nvidia.com > <mailto:jihar...@nvidia.com>> wrote: >> >> >> >>> On Aug 20, 2025, at 1:55 AM, Miklos Szeredi <mik...@szeredi.hu> 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
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
