--1UWUbFP1cBYEclgG
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Tue, Jun 22, 2004 at 11:00:37PM +0900, YAMAMOTO Takashi wrote:
> hi,
>=20
> > > I definitely think the "no way to see" aspect is bad. I think there m=
ay=20
> > > still be value in keeping the removal, but we definitely should let t=
he fs=20
> > > know there was/is an entry.
>=20
> i made a less-intrusive version. (attached)
>=20
> it introduces a new function, cache_lookup_raw(), for
> filesystems which want more flexibility.
> otoh, it keeps cache_lookup() as-is so that filesystems which prefer
> the current "kind" behaviour won't need to be changed.
>=20
> is it acceptable for you?

Sure. While I think it'd be nice to eventually merge the behaviors and=20
come up with one routine that works well for both (perhaps with a flag to=
=20
choose behaviors), but I don't have time to do that now and I'd like to=20
let you make progress.

Take care,

Bill

--1UWUbFP1cBYEclgG
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (NetBSD)

iD8DBQFA2GhNWz+3JHUci9cRAl4tAKCJfrNeJymgS0YjIwxFGNZ4uEW8GQCeKrg2
NMczW2vTLBwF81OytIMTMzw=
=PjZm
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--1UWUbFP1cBYEclgG--