Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 16:27:49 -0800 From: Alfred Perlstein <bright@wintelcom.net> To: Jordan Hubbard <jkh@winston.osd.bsdi.com> Cc: "David E. Cross" <crossd@cs.rpi.edu>, Axel Thimm <Axel.Thimm@physik.fu-berlin.de>, Carsten Urbach <Carsten.Urbach@physik.fu-berlin.de>, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: rpc.lockd and true NFS locks? Message-ID: <20001214162748.B19572@fw.wintelcom.net> In-Reply-To: <49217.976839049@winston.osd.bsdi.com>; from jkh@winston.osd.bsdi.com on Thu, Dec 14, 2000 at 04:10:49PM -0800 References: <bright@wintelcom.net> <49217.976839049@winston.osd.bsdi.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* Jordan Hubbard <jkh@winston.osd.bsdi.com> [001214 16:11] wrote: > [-current mailing list pruned; I think -hackers is enough] > > > I would like to see it in both -current and -stable. > > I think that would be wrong, at least given the current state of > the lockd stuff. > > First off, as David himself points out, there are issues with this > code and we'd be well off dealing with those *before* committing it to > -stable. I also don't think that this would be achieved simply by > having more eyes on it, as you intimate, but by actually having a > coherent set of code to work on and the Right Developers(tm) hacking > on it. I agree with Bill Joy's assertion that all bugs are NOT > shallow through having enough eyes, as Linus likes to say, but through > having one or two really bright people practically killing themselves > to fix them. My argument against this is that giving ample warning is a far cry from the Linux mantra "release early, release often, ship the system with async files, we'll let them know how to not loose data _next_ time". Here I'm proposing that we be more than honest. The current fake lockd doesn't even do fake NLMv4 locks (although there's patches that I did do it so that it would floating around). It's also a lot harder to find bugs when you're looking at your own code versus when someone sends you a crashdump because what they were doing is able to tickle a bug you'd never assume was possible. David did say that it pretty much works, and preliminary reports from a while back started getting him some feedback which quickly died off after people forgot about the announcement. > We've also had working NFS lockd code in the BSD/OS tree on builder, > along with full permission to grab it, for some time now but that > hasn't made it happen because the right developers have yet to take > that active an interest. Actually, that would do us well for the client side, however since we don't have anyone (so far) from BSD/os to explain the intracate parts of it, I'd rather see something come in that has someone familiar with the code rather than something we'd have to grok. Then again, I should take a look at the BSD/os rpc.lockd one weekend. David, you have builder access, what do you think about the BSD/os version? -- -Alfred Perlstein - [bright@wintelcom.net|alfred@freebsd.org] "I have the heart of a child; I keep it in a jar on my desk." 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?20001214162748.B19572>