From owner-freebsd-current  Mon Mar 25 12:02:11 1996
Return-Path: owner-current
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id MAA01302
          for current-outgoing; Mon, 25 Mar 1996 12:02:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from Root.COM (implode.Root.COM [198.145.90.17])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id MAA01294
          for <freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org>; Mon, 25 Mar 1996 12:02:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by Root.COM (8.6.12/8.6.5) with SMTP id MAA06245; Mon, 25 Mar 1996 12:02:26 -0800
Message-Id: <199603252002.MAA06245@Root.COM>
X-Authentication-Warning: implode.Root.COM: Host localhost didn't use HELO protocol
To: Paul Traina <pst@shockwave.com>
cc: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org
Subject: Re: async mounts, etc. 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 25 Mar 1996 09:50:41 PST."
             <199603251750.JAA04526@precipice.shockwave.com> 
From: David Greenman <davidg@Root.COM>
Reply-To: davidg@Root.COM
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 1996 12:02:26 -0800
Sender: owner-current@FreeBSD.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

>  From: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org>
>  Subject: Re: async mounts, etc.
>
>  In any case, if you believe that I have been "rewriting the world
>  for the sake of rewriting the world", you are mistaken.
>
>Thanks for the clarification.
>
>As for commit priveleges, I'm not in charge of that, nor would I commit
>changes in this area of the code unilaterally.  (I certainly would be
>happy to to grunt work if Bruce and David reviewed them.)
>
>What's your ETA for getting the code into shape, and do you imagine there
>will be much controversy over integration?

   The mount of controversy is directly proportional to the amount of
non-related changes that are simultaneously submitted (mixed in with the
rest). Both John and I keep looking at Terry's stuff and asking "Hmmm, how can
we extract just the substance of this". A sure-fire way to cause the code to
not be committed is to make "single entry, single exit" changes at the same
time. I don't care to debate this subject now, but I do want to make something
clear: whether you have commit authority or not, I *strongly* encourage that
changes be localized to the task at hand - especially when the changes must
be reviewed before commit like the ones Terry almost always submits. This
*can* be done. We (john and me) know we can extract the namei/componentname
changes from one of Terry's submissions, for example, but simply haven't had
the time to do it.
   Just to clarify my position on the VOP_LOCK layering...I agree in principle
with these changes (as does John D. and Kirk). If Terry is willing to
implement *just* those changes, then we will seriously consider them. I know
it's tempting to fix this or that at the same time or to implement your
personal stylistic changes or whatever. There's too much that can go wrong in
the locking, however, and I must insist that the changes be "localized to the
task".

-DG

David Greenman
Core-team/Principal Architect, The FreeBSD Project