Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 01:36:50 +0000 (GMT) From: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com> To: Don.Lewis@tsc.tdk.com (Don Lewis) Cc: tlambert@primenet.com, dfr@nlsystems.com, dillon@apollo.backplane.com, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Panic in FFS/4.0 as of yesterday Message-ID: <199902240136.SAA24815@usr09.primenet.com> In-Reply-To: <199902221428.GAA28942@salsa.gv.tsc.tdk.com> from "Don Lewis" at Feb 22, 99 06:28:56 am
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> } The correct way to do this, IMO, is a back-off/retry, which would > } unlock the lock and queue the operation for retry, which would > } reacquire the lock. > > Wouldn't you have to relock the parent before unlocking the lock (nasty > because it reverses the locking order and might cause a deadlock). You would have to unlock the child *then* unlock the parent to do this, yes. That was the point of the "relookup" reference for rename, which has to open a race window to do the locks correctly. Since the operation is supposed to appear atomic, a failure + retry is an OK outcome. Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers. 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?199902240136.SAA24815>