From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Sep 6 02:36:39 2007 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36E4F16A419 for ; Thu, 6 Sep 2007 02:36:39 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from anderson@freebsd.org) Received: from ns.trinitel.com (186.161.36.72.static.reverse.ltdomains.com [72.36.161.186]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D50EE13C494 for ; Thu, 6 Sep 2007 02:36:38 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from anderson@freebsd.org) Received: from proton.local (r74-193-81-203.pfvlcmta01.grtntx.tl.dh.suddenlink.net [74.193.81.203]) (authenticated bits=0) by ns.trinitel.com (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id l8626a94024567; Wed, 5 Sep 2007 21:06:38 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from anderson@freebsd.org) Message-ID: <46DF60A6.8040403@freebsd.org> Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2007 21:06:30 -0500 From: Eric Anderson User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Macintosh/20070728) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ulf Lilleengen References: <20070816100526.GA31897@stud.ntnu.no> In-Reply-To: <20070816100526.GA31897@stud.ntnu.no> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.90.1/4167/Wed Sep 5 15:37:52 2007 on ns.trinitel.com X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.1.8 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.8 (2007-02-13) on ns.trinitel.com Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Make fdescfs MPSAFE 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: Thu, 06 Sep 2007 02:36:39 -0000 Ulf Lilleengen wrote: > Hi, > > To be able to better understand VFS and locking in general, I started making > fdescfs MPSAFE. I'm not experienced with any of these things, so there might be > some errors, although I've looked through much VFS code and code for other FS > like nullfs. I've tested it by running two pthreads on the same fd, and that seamt > to work, but there might be other cases where it will fail. > > Patch is attached. I guess this never went anywhere? Looked like good work to me, but I didn't test it much. Did anyone see any issues with the patches? Eric