Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1999 09:20:29 -0700 (PDT) From: Bill Studenmund <wrstuden@nas.nasa.gov> To: Michael Hancock <michaelh@cet.co.jp> Cc: Hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, fs@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: BSD XFS Port & BSD VFS Rewrite Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.96.990817091538.6014B-100000@marcy.nas.nasa.gov> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.95LJ1.1b3.990817224323.17508B-100000@sv01.cet.co.jp>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 17 Aug 1999, Michael Hancock wrote: > As I recall most of FBSD's default routines are also error routines, if > the exceptions were a problem it would would be trivial to fix. > > I think fixing resource allocation/deallocation for things like vnodes, > cnbufs, and locks are a higher priority for now. There are examples such > as in detached threading where it might make sense for the detached child > to be responsible for releasing resources allocated to it by the parent, > but in stacking this model is very messy and unnatural. This is why the > purpose of VOP_ABORTOP appears to be to release cnbufs but this is really > just an ugly side effect. With stacking the code that allocates should be > the code that deallocates. Substitute, "code" with "layer" to be more > correct. > > I fixed a lot of the vnode and locking cases, unfortunately the ones that > remain are probably ugly cases where you have to reacquire locks that had > to be unlocked somewhere in the executing layer. See VOP_RENAME for an > example. Compare the number of WILLRELEs in vnode_if.src in FreeBSD and > NetBSD, ideally there'd be none. I've compared the two, and making the NetBSD number match the FreeBSD number is one of my goals. :-) Any suggestions, or just plod&fix? Take care, Bill To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.SOL.3.96.990817091538.6014B-100000>