NFD

Should this feature be normal LRU policy or Priority-LRU policy like the default Priority-fifo?

Reply to note-7:

This is regular LRU.
Forget about unsolicited.

Do I need to update NFD develop guide for Policy LRU?

Yes. Add a paragraph after "priority FIFO cache policy" to describe LRU policy, and how to select this policy at compile time (eg. what files to modify).

In nfd-docs:commit:95c0794f0c18ea7c83f11c1ae45ba998e9b6f172, LRU cache policy is described as:

At any time, when an entry is used or refreshed, its Table iterator is relocated to the head of the queue.
Or when an entry is newly inserted, its Table iterator is pushed at the tail of the queue.
When an entry is evicted, its Table iterator erased from the head of its Queue,

This means:

• Head of queue has last accessed entry, and last re-inserted (refreshed) entry.
• Tail of queue has last newly inserted entry.
• Head of queue is evicted first.

Questions:

• Why is "newly inserted" and "re-inserted (refreshed)" processed differently?
• Why is last accessed entry (head of queue) evicted first?

• Why is "newly inserted" and "re-inserted (refreshed)" processed differently?
• Why is last accessed entry (head of queue) evicted first?

I gave wrong description about this. Re-inserted entry actually is relocated to tail of the queue. So last accessed entry is not evicted first. "Newly inserted" and "re-inserted (refreshed)" should be processed same, both put to tail of the queue.