On Wed, Jun 02, 2010 at 05:58:40PM +0100, David Laight wrote:
In the long term VOP_xxxLOCK() should become part of the file systems.
AFAIK there is a consensus between yamt@, ad@ and thorpej@ that
locking should be moved down to the filesystems.
There was some discussion about it
On Tue, Jun 01, 2010 at 11:44:03AM +0200, Juergen Hannken-Illjes wrote:
It's not immediately clear how either of these ought to work, so
I'm concerned that making the infrastructure less general will
lead to problems.
1) One upper to many lower vnodes
This is a file system like
hi,
On Wed, Jun 02, 2010 at 05:58:40PM +0100, David Laight wrote:
In the long term VOP_xxxLOCK() should become part of the file systems.
AFAIK there is a consensus between yamt@, ad@ and thorpej@ that
locking should be moved down to the filesystems.
There was some
With our current vnode lock implementation VOP_LOCK() and VOP_UNLOCK()
are not symmetric. A vnode may be locked from one file system and
unlocked from another one. Is there any reason left to have layered
file systems share the vnode lock with lower file systems via v_vnlock?
The attached patch
