Date: Wed, 2 Apr 1997 13:05:42 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> To: phk@critter.dk.tfs.com (Poul-Henning Kamp) Cc: terry@lambert.org, ache@nagual.ru, dyson@freebsd.org, bde@zeta.org.au, current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ufs lock panic in -current Message-ID: <199704022005.NAA14273@phaeton.artisoft.com> In-Reply-To: <247.860009451@critter> from "Poul-Henning Kamp" at Apr 2, 97 09:30:51 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> (Terry sent his standard reply #1:) > > > >The fix is conceptually non-trivial, and requires that the transitive > >closure be calculated at the same layer for all FS's. This implies a > >veto, rather than a call-down, interface for VOP_LOCK. > > > >Physically, the fix is about 200 lines of code, including all FS > >code changes. > > (And I send my standard reply #1:) > > Well, send us the patch Terry! Have you guys integrated the patches I sent to Julian for the namei/nameifree fixes and the redundant code reduction "EXCLUDE" NDINIT() op flag yet? I even broke them out as seperate from all my other patches, even though it meant buying another disk and building a seperate source tree to do it: I've spend a not inconsiderable amount of money trying to appease you by hopping on the correct foot during the chanting and incense burning. If not, which will you integrate first, the lock veto fixes, or the layering fixes? I only ask so that when I hit the same function in the same file for both of them, I get the dependency order right. Or am I just supposed to send patches that work regardless of the dependency order? I'll remind you that dependencies aren't acyclic, unless we move to one function per object module, which would be ridiculous. I did send some order independent patches to you once (by stuffing in all the patches at once), but you said that they touched too much stuff at one time, so they couldn't be reviewed... Please make up your mind, and let me know when you're done. Regards, Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199704022005.NAA14273>