Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 08:06:39 +0600 (ALMT) From: Boris Popov <bp@butya.kz> To: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com> Cc: freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: MSDOS FS and flock? Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0011230754540.61472-100000@lion.butya.kz> In-Reply-To: <200011222201.PAA04375@usr07.primenet.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 22 Nov 2000, Terry Lambert wrote: > > duplication other than wrapper to standard function. Of course, if this > > patch going to be committed, then vop_stdadvlock() should be introduced. > > Well, ignoring the fact that "vop_std*" takes the decision out > of the authors hands... ;^) No, it doesn't - presence of vop_std* functions doesn't mean that they are included in the default VOPs. And even in the later case, after is free to overload them. > I think the only way a vop_stdadvlock() can be introduced is if > the lock list moves off of a per VFS addressed list, like that > in UFS and in the MSDOSFS patch, The problem is that the only > non-opaque method of creating a uniform FS object reference is > the vnode. That means the list has to be hung off the vnode, > for the code to be centralized. Yes, sounds reasonable. > > Indeed, but evolution of VFS is not finished :) > > Ugh. Software does not evolve. It is designed, and it is "Ugh" - don't take things too literally. I'm pretty aware of the stages included in the software development processes, but sometimes choose incorrect terms in the non-native language :) -- 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.4.21.0011230754540.61472-100000>