On Sat, Nov 30, 2019 at 10:57 AM Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 29, 2019 at 12:34 PM Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com> wrote:
> > ... or stop using
> > _mdfd_getseg() for this so that you can remove segments independently
> > without worrying about sync requests for other segments (it was
> > actually like that in an earlier version of the patch for commit
> > 3eb77eba, but someone complained that it didn't benifit from fd
> > caching).
>
> Not sure which approach I prefer yet, but here's a patch showing that
> alternative.
Here's a better version: it uses the existing fd if we have it already
in md_seg_fds, but opens and closes a transient one if not.
