On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 02:21:44PM +, YAMAMOTO Takashi wrote:
> Module Name: src
> Committed By: yamt
> Date: Wed Jun 24 14:21:44 UTC 2009
>
> Modified Files:
> src/sys/kern [yamt-nfs-mp]: vfs_syscalls.c
> src/sys/nfs [yamt-nfs-mp]: nfs_vfsops.c nfs_vnops.c
>
> Log Messag
> On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 02:21:44PM +, YAMAMOTO Takashi wrote:
>> Module Name: src
>> Committed By:yamt
>> Date:Wed Jun 24 14:21:44 UTC 2009
>>
>> Modified Files:
>> src/sys/kern [yamt-nfs-mp]: vfs_syscalls.c
>> src/sys/nfs [yamt-nfs-mp]: nfs_vfsops.c nfs_vno
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 12:47:38AM +, YAMAMOTO Takashi wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 02:21:44PM +, YAMAMOTO Takashi wrote:
> >> Module Name: src
> >> Committed By: yamt
> >> Date: Wed Jun 24 14:21:44 UTC 2009
> >>
> >> Modified Files:
> >>src/sys/kern [yamt
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 09:24:57PM -0700, Bill Stouder-Studenmund wrote:
> > >
> > > The fact that the caller has a reference to the vnode at all should
> > > really be enough, surely??
> >
> > do you mean vref?
> > it doesn't prevent revoke(2).
> > thus a filesystem can't access v_data safely.
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 07:50:59AM +0100, David Laight wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 09:24:57PM -0700, Bill Stouder-Studenmund wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The fact that the caller has a reference to the vnode at all should
> > > > really be enough, surely??
> > >
> > > do you mean vref?
> > > it do
hi,
> On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 12:47:38AM +, YAMAMOTO Takashi wrote:
>> > On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 02:21:44PM +, YAMAMOTO Takashi wrote:
>> >> Module Name: src
>> >> Committed By: yamt
>> >> Date: Wed Jun 24 14:21:44 UTC 2009
>> >>
>> >> Modified Files:
>> >> src/sys/
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 09:24:57PM -0700, Bill Stouder-Studenmund wrote:
> I think we should steal some other OSs vnode interface, at least as far as
> locking and reclaim logic.
And as far as quite a few other things, too... that's my long-range
goal, if, dammit, I can ever find time to work o