From owner-freebsd-current  Fri Oct 23 01:29:43 1998
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id BAA07093
          for freebsd-current-outgoing; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 01:29:43 -0700 (PDT)
          (envelope-from owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG)
Received: from gatekeeper.tsc.tdk.com (gatekeeper.tsc.tdk.com [207.113.159.21])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id BAA07088
          for <current@FreeBSD.ORG>; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 01:29:42 -0700 (PDT)
          (envelope-from gdonl@tsc.tdk.com)
Received: from sunrise.gv.tsc.tdk.com (root@sunrise.gv.tsc.tdk.com [192.168.241.191])
	by gatekeeper.tsc.tdk.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id BAA11199;
	Fri, 23 Oct 1998 01:29:04 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from gdonl@tsc.tdk.com)
Received: from salsa.gv.tsc.tdk.com (salsa.gv.tsc.tdk.com [192.168.241.194])
	by sunrise.gv.tsc.tdk.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id BAA20690;
	Fri, 23 Oct 1998 01:29:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from gdonl@localhost)
	by salsa.gv.tsc.tdk.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id BAA20382;
	Fri, 23 Oct 1998 01:29:01 -0700 (PDT)
From: Don Lewis <Don.Lewis@tsc.tdk.com>
Message-Id: <199810230829.BAA20382@salsa.gv.tsc.tdk.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 01:29:01 -0700
In-Reply-To: Doug Rabson <dfr@nlsystems.com>
       "Re: -current NFS problem" (Oct 20,  9:01am)
X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.2.6 alpha(3) 7/19/95)
To: Doug Rabson <dfr@nlsystems.com>, Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com>
Subject: Re: -current NFS problem
Cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG
Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG

On Oct 20,  9:01am, Doug Rabson wrote:
} Subject: Re: -current NFS problem
} On Tue, 20 Oct 1998, Terry Lambert wrote:

} > My main question would be:
} > 
} > o	Do you see any reason why nfsnode locking should be necessary?
} 
} The last time I spoke to Rick about this, he said that the reason NFS
} can't use a vnode lock is to prevent a server hang from causing a lock
} cascade ending up with the root vnode being locked and the whole machine
} wedged.  I experimented for a while with a gross hack which only locked
} regular files but it was too complicated and I ditched it.

Hmn, as another gross hack, how about unlocking the parent directory
before locking the child when crossing a mount point?  You'd have to
disallow operations at the mount point that want namei() to return with
the parent locked, but this doesn't look like it would be much of a loss.

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