Re: BSD XFS Port & BSD VFS Rewrite

[ Available lists | Index of freebsd-fs | Month of Aug 1999 | Week of 17 Aug 1999 | Raw email | View thread | Wrap long lines | Reply | Tag ]
From
Bill Studenmund <wrstuden@nas.nasa.gov>
Date
17 Aug 1999 09:20:30
Subject
Re: BSD XFS Port & BSD VFS Rewrite
Message-ID
Pine.SOL.3.96.990817091538.6014B-100000@marcy.nas.nasa.gov


[ Hide this part ]
On Tue, 17 Aug 1999, Michael Hancock wrote:

> As I recall most of FBSD's default routines are also error routines, if
> the exceptions were a problem it would would be trivial to fix.
>
> I think fixing resource allocation/deallocation for things like vnodes,
> cnbufs, and locks are a higher priority for now. There are examples such
> as in detached threading where it might make sense for the detached child
> to be responsible for releasing resources allocated to it by the parent,
> but in stacking this model is very messy and unnatural. This is why the
> purpose of VOP_ABORTOP appears to be to release cnbufs but this is really
> just an ugly side effect. With stacking the code that allocates should be
> the code that deallocates. Substitute, "code" with "layer" to be more
> correct.
>
> I fixed a lot of the vnode and locking cases, unfortunately the ones that
> remain are probably ugly cases where you have to reacquire locks that had
> to be unlocked somewhere in the executing layer. See VOP_RENAME for an
> example. Compare the number of WILLRELEs in vnode_if.src in FreeBSD and
> NetBSD, ideally there'd be none.

I've compared the two, and making the NetBSD number match the FreeBSD
number is one of my goals. :-)

Any suggestions, or just plod&fix?

Take care,

Bill



To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-fs" in the body of the message



Elapsed time: 0.119 seconds