Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1998 05:14:39 +0900 (JST) From: Michael Hancock <michaelh@cet.co.jp> To: Eivind Eklund <eivind@yes.no> Cc: fs@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: vput(proc) patches Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.95LJ1.1b3.980908050938.22258D-100000@sv01.cet.co.jp> In-Reply-To: <19980907015012.60821@follo.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Personally, I think the having a proc arg is good. They can probably folded in at later time when more smp design/work is done. I generally agree with Poul's suggestion that he posted a while back, that we should do coarse grained locking with a lock per subsystem. Regards, Mike On Mon, 7 Sep 1998, Eivind Eklund wrote: > Just FYI, I'm not going to commit these, due to veto from Those That > Know Better (in this case, bde). If somebody want to argue it, that's > where to address the complaints. > > Eivind. > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-fs" in the body of the message > 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.3.95LJ1.1b3.980908050938.22258D-100000>