From nobody Mon Mar 11 09:43:17 2024
X-Original-To: current@mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1])
	by mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4TtWzx2D7Nz5Cbt3
	for <current@mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org>; Mon, 11 Mar 2024 09:43:25 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from kostikbel@gmail.com)
Received: from kib.kiev.ua (kib.kiev.ua [IPv6:2001:470:d5e7:1::1])
	(using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)
	 key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256)
	(Client did not present a certificate)
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4TtWzw5wv1z4lZk
	for <current@freebsd.org>; Mon, 11 Mar 2024 09:43:24 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from kostikbel@gmail.com)
Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org;
	none
Received: from tom.home (kib@localhost [127.0.0.1] (may be forged))
	by kib.kiev.ua (8.18.1/8.18.1) with ESMTP id 42B9hHvN053146;
	Mon, 11 Mar 2024 11:43:20 +0200 (EET)
	(envelope-from kostikbel@gmail.com)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.10.3 kib.kiev.ua 42B9hHvN053146
Received: (from kostik@localhost)
	by tom.home (8.18.1/8.18.1/Submit) id 42B9hHJc053145;
	Mon, 11 Mar 2024 11:43:17 +0200 (EET)
	(envelope-from kostikbel@gmail.com)
X-Authentication-Warning: tom.home: kostik set sender to kostikbel@gmail.com using -f
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2024 11:43:17 +0200
From: Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com>
To: Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@leidinger.net>
Cc: current@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Reason why "nocache" option is not displayed in "mount"?
Message-ID: <Ze7SNT-2KTs4wWgd@kib.kiev.ua>
References: <Ze3sMj6jf3upY3_G@kib.kiev.ua>
 <20240310215051.EC14296B7@freefall.freebsd.org>
 <Ze4ssbRm615OBQA3@kib.kiev.ua>
 <720dc441819f0074362631b11a71f7de@Leidinger.net>
List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current <freebsd-current.freebsd.org>
List-Archive: https://lists.freebsd.org/archives/freebsd-current
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-current+help@freebsd.org>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:freebsd-current+subscribe@freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:freebsd-current+unsubscribe@freebsd.org>
Sender: owner-freebsd-current@freebsd.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <720dc441819f0074362631b11a71f7de@Leidinger.net>
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,BAYES_00,
	DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED,FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD,FREEMAIL_FROM,
	NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=4.0.0
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 (2022-12-14) on tom.home
X-Spamd-Bar: ----
X-Rspamd-Pre-Result: action=no action;
	module=replies;
	Message is reply to one we originated
X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-4.00 / 15.00];
	REPLY(-4.00)[];
	ASN(0.00)[asn:6939, ipnet:2001:470::/32, country:US]
X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4TtWzw5wv1z4lZk

On Mon, Mar 11, 2024 at 09:03:38AM +0100, Alexander Leidinger wrote:
> Am 2024-03-10 22:57, schrieb Konstantin Belousov:
> 
> > We are already low on the free bits in the flags, even after expanding
> > them
> > to 64bit.  More, there are useful common fs services continuously
> > consuming
> > that flags, e.g. the recent NFS TLS options.
> > 
> > I object against using the flags for absolutely not important things,
> > like
> > this nullfs "cache" option.
> > 
> > In long term, we would have to export nmount(2) strings since bits in
> > flags are finite, but I prefer to delay it as much as possible.
> 
> Why do you want to delay this? Personal priorities, or technical reasons?

Because it is a lot of work which is currently not needed and where I will
need to participate.