Subject: Re: linux-next: Tree for December 18 (fscache)

From: David Howells <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 17:47:56 +0000

Randy Dunlap <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Should include/linux/buffer_head.h have an empty stub for fsync_super()
> or does fscache even make sense when CONFIG_BLOCK=n?

FS-Cache might.  CacheFiles probably doesn't.

There've been discussions about a separate caching backend to deal with
non-rotating media such as large chunks of battery-backed RAM or flash.
FS-Cache might make sense in such a situation as these could be accessed in
other ways (such as through MTD or even directly).

I'll make CONFIG_CACHEFILES dependent on CONFIG_BLOCK.

David