hi,

> That's different, and that's my objection. Before your change, we will
> look in the name cache even if we're about to rename or delete. So if the
> node's known, we find it fast.

actually, cache_lookup() doesn't return the cached entry
if MAKEENTRY is not set.  and ufs code depends on this behaviour.
it's what i called ufs-ism.

> After your change we will always blow the
> cache entry away and then do a to-disk lookup.

it's how our lookup(9) and vnode ops works *currently*.
ufs needs it, but nfs doesn't.

> lookup(9) (as I understand 
> it) is not currently disabling USING the cache, it is just disabling 
> creating cache entries for something that's about to be deleted.

no.  see above.

YAMAMOTO Takashi