Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 17:21:50 +0100 From: Bjoern Fischer <bfischer@Techfak.Uni-Bielefeld.DE> To: Boris Popov <bp@butya.kz> Cc: freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG, freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: vnode interlock API Message-ID: <20010206172150.A528@frolic.no-support.loc> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0102061638280.82511-100000@lion.butya.kz>; from bp@butya.kz on Tue, Feb 06, 2001 at 05:00:03PM %2B0600 References: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0102061638280.82511-100000@lion.butya.kz>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hello, > Few months ago simple locks used for vnode interlock were replaced > by mutexes. It causes additional pain for externally maintained > filesystems and lowers portability of the code between -stable and > -current. > > So, I suggest to introduce two macro definitions which will hide > implementation details for interlocks: > > #define VI_LOCK(vp) mtx_enter(&(vp)->v_interlock, MTX_DEF) > #define VI_UNLOCK(vp) mtx_exit(&(vp)->v_interlock, MTX_DEF) BTW, does this mean that -current vnode locking works sufficiently enough to support stacked file systems a la Eric Zadok's FiST software? Bjoern -- -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- GCS d--(+) s++: a- C+++(-) UB++++OSI++++$ P+++(-) L---(++) !E W- N+ o>+ K- !w !O !M !V PS++ PE- PGP++ t+++ !5 X++ tv- b+++ D++ G e+ h-- y+ ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------ 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?20010206172150.A528>