Date: Fri, 27 Feb 1998 13:57:33 -0600 From: Jonathan Lemon <jlemon@americantv.com> To: Eivind Eklund <eivind@yes.no> Cc: fs@FreeBSD.ORG, jlemon@americantv.com Subject: Re: syncer / SMP question Message-ID: <19980227135733.19894@right.PCS> In-Reply-To: <19980227190132.53798@follo.net>; from Eivind Eklund on Feb 02, 1998 at 07:01:32PM %2B0100 References: <19980227164859.25557@follo.net> <19980227102555.05064@right.PCS> <19980227190132.53798@follo.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Feb 02, 1998 at 07:01:32PM +0100, Eivind Eklund wrote: > Yes, I later noticed. What do you think of the above? I think I'll take the original code. :-) While layering is nice, it imposes a performance hit. Also, I think that the above is overkill, and just serves to obfuscate the code. It took me longer to understand the macros above than it did to read the original implementation. IMHO, all the original code really needs is a nice little comment stating that vfs_busy() releases the lock on the mountlist if it succeeds. I'll also note that it appears possible to pass a NULL third argument to vfs_busy() and thus have it not release the lock on the mountlist. Then simple_unlock would be called explicitly in the sync() function, also making things clearer. I'm unsure if the lock release done by vfs_busy/lockmgr was for 1) convenience, or 2) some form of atomic unlocking. Perhaps someone else could explain? Terry? Poul? -- Jonathan To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-fs" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19980227135733.19894>