From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jan 9 21:01:15 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: fs@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5B4C16A419 for ; Wed, 9 Jan 2008 21:01:15 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from pho@holm.cc) Received: from relay00.pair.com (relay00.pair.com [209.68.5.9]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 93E6D13C474 for ; Wed, 9 Jan 2008 21:01:15 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from pho@holm.cc) Received: (qmail 81358 invoked from network); 9 Jan 2008 20:34:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO peter.osted.lan) (unknown) by unknown with SMTP; 9 Jan 2008 20:34:33 -0000 X-pair-Authenticated: 83.95.197.164 Received: from peter.osted.lan (localhost.osted.lan [127.0.0.1]) by peter.osted.lan (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id m09KYXun014071; Wed, 9 Jan 2008 21:34:33 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from pho@peter.osted.lan) Received: (from pho@localhost) by peter.osted.lan (8.13.6/8.13.6/Submit) id m09KYXpL014070; Wed, 9 Jan 2008 21:34:33 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from pho) Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2008 21:34:33 +0100 From: Peter Holm To: Attilio Rao Message-ID: <20080109203433.GA13933@peter.osted.lan> References: <3bbf2fe10801090619x1ce5a178x1731db272c8d20fd@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3bbf2fe10801090619x1ce5a178x1731db272c8d20fd@mail.gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i Cc: arch@freebsd.org, current@freebsd.org, fs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] lockmgr and VFS plans X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2008 21:01:16 -0000 On Wed, Jan 09, 2008 at 03:19:35PM +0100, Attilio Rao wrote: > Hi, > as previously explained in past e-mails, lockmgr() is going to face a > massive restructuration. > The work is progressing on two different rails: the former involves > fixing consumers code in order to make it completely implementative > details agnostic, in order to make it cleaner and more robust. The > latter involves giving a good replacement for current functions and a > faster implementation. > lockmgr() is an old primitive widely used in our VFS subsystem, so > this overhaul would involve someway VFS subsystem necessarilly, in > particular about the former line of development. > > Part of this overhaul (for this preliminary stages) consists in > removing the 'thread' argument from the lockmgr() interface which also > means making useless the same argument about VFS functions (vn_lock, > VOP_LOCK() and VOP_UNLOCK()). This removal can be done in a 'stacked' > way and can be splitted in 2 different stages: the former will clean > up only vn_lock() while the latter will be more aggressive and it will > involve hardly VFS, fixing VOP_LOCK1() and VOP_UNLOCK(). This patch > removes the 'thread' argument from vn_lock(): > http://people.freebsd.org/~attilio/vn_lock.diff > I'll try and test it this wekend. > What I'm looking for is: > - objections to this > - testers (even if a small crowd alredy offered to test this patch) > > I test-compiled and runned LINT with this patch and it works > perfectly, but a wider audience would be better. > > I also would appreciate a lot if people planning to do changes to > lockmgr or VFS would coordinate their efforts with me, even on small > changes. > > Thanks, > Attilio > > > -- > Peace can only be achieved by understanding - A. Einstein > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-arch@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-arch-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" -- Peter Holm