Date: Wed, 8 Dec 1999 12:03:16 +0100 From: Eivind Eklund <eivind@FreeBSD.ORG> To: Michael Hancock <michaelh@cet.co.jp> Cc: fs@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Final call for VOP_ISLOCKED objections Message-ID: <19991208120316.Q14851@bitbox.follo.net> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.95LJ1.1b3.991208144549.19997A-100000@sv01.cet.co.jp>; from michaelh@cet.co.jp on Wed, Dec 08, 1999 at 02:53:48PM %2B0900 References: <19991208014115.L14851@bitbox.follo.net> <Pine.BSF.3.95LJ1.1b3.991208144549.19997A-100000@sv01.cet.co.jp>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Dec 08, 1999 at 02:53:48PM +0900, Michael Hancock wrote: > I think the DEBUG_VFS_LOCKS stuff was temporary debugging infrastructure, > put into debug NFS. The comments seems indicate they were intended to debug all locks; and this is what I'm using it for, anyway. > When SMP gets more fine grained I'm not sure how useful they will > be. i.e. race conditions between checking the assertion and the > protected code. This may become a problem for some of the assertions at some point, yes, but to get to that point I think we will need quite a few other code sweeps to fix assumptions that the kernel is single-threaded. Before then, I hope to have cleaned up the VFS locking protocols (both use and specification) well enough that the assertions won't be crucial any more. > If the changes to vnode_if.src/vnode_if.sh are just comments then it > probably isn't a problem. The changes to vnode_if.src are just comments (about new available lockspecs). The changes to vnode_if.sh are to take new lockspecs (of which none are yet available) and turn them into assertions in the generated VOP code. Eivind. 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?19991208120316.Q14851>