Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 17:00:03 +0600 (ALMT) From: Boris Popov <bp@butya.kz> To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Subject: vnode interlock API Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0102061638280.82511-100000@lion.butya.kz>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hello, Few months ago simple locks used for vnode interlock were replaced by mutexes. It causes additional pain for externally maintained filesystems and lowers portability of the code between -stable and -current. So, I suggest to introduce two macro definitions which will hide implementation details for interlocks: #define VI_LOCK(vp) mtx_enter(&(vp)->v_interlock, MTX_DEF) #define VI_UNLOCK(vp) mtx_exit(&(vp)->v_interlock, MTX_DEF) for RELENG_4 they will look like this: #define VI_LOCK(vp) simple_lock(&(vp)->v_interlock) #define VI_UNLOCK(vp) simple_unlock(&(vp)->v_interlock) Any comments, suggestions ? -- Boris Popov http://www.butya.kz/~bp/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-fs" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.21.0102061638280.82511-100000>