Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 19:05:53 +0200 From: Bjoern Fischer <bfischer@Techfak.Uni-Bielefeld.DE> To: Matt Dillon <dillon@earth.backplane.com> Cc: Boris Popov <bp@butya.kz>, "Daniel C. Sobral" <dcs@newsguy.com>, freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG, semenu@FreeBSD.ORG, tegge@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: CFR: nullfs, vm_objects and locks... (patch) Message-ID: <20000913190552.B1450@frolic.no-support.loc> In-Reply-To: <200009051942.MAA76219@earth.backplane.com>; from dillon@earth.backplane.com on Tue, Sep 05, 2000 at 12:42:19PM -0700 References: <Pine.BSF.4.10.10009052108550.81844-100000@lion.butya.kz> <200009051942.MAA76219@earth.backplane.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Sep 05, 2000 at 12:42:19PM -0700, Matt Dillon wrote: > I agree with all of Boris's points in regards to the two major changes: > Adding VOP's to access the VM object, and integrating the vnode lock > into the vnode directly. > > There is one issue which needs to be resolved, and that is with NFS. It > is not safe to lock vnodes related to NFS, which is why the NFS VOP locking > routines always force shared locks. This problem would have to be > resolved. Would this also apply to a possible NFSv4 implementation in future? There is an implementation under way for OpenBSD, how do they approach locking and stackable fs? Bjoern -- -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- GCS d--(+) s++: a- C+++(-) UB++++OSI++++$ P+++(-) L---(++) !E W- N+ o>+ K- !w !O !M !V PS++ PE- PGP++ t+++ !5 X++ tv- b+++ D++ G e+ h-- y+ ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------ 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?20000913190552.B1450>