From owner-freebsd-current Fri Oct 5 11:16:23 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mail11.speakeasy.net (mail11.speakeasy.net [216.254.0.211]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 82D0037B403 for ; Fri, 5 Oct 2001 11:16:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 86824 invoked from network); 5 Oct 2001 18:16:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO laptop.baldwin.cx) ([64.81.54.73]) (envelope-sender ) by mail11.speakeasy.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 5 Oct 2001 18:16:19 -0000 Message-ID: X-Mailer: XFMail 1.4.0 on FreeBSD X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2001 11:15:55 -0700 (PDT) From: John Baldwin To: Julian Elischer Subject: Re: KSE settling in (smbfs broken) again Cc: current@FreeBSD.org, julian@FreeBSD.org, Sheldon Hearn Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On 05-Oct-01 Julian Elischer wrote: > A second response: > > As far as I know the two filesystems smbfs and nwfs are the only two parts > of the system that remain to be done (and ncp which is part of nwfs) > There are some issues with it that I don't really follow as I don't > understand the protocols.. Both of these filesystems seem to have > some idea of a "session" and it's not clear whether a session is a process > or thread property.. (probably process), however > they use the process pointer to serialise access within > transaction lists so there isn't any built in protection when we move > to threads. > > I need to look at it again.. (I figured I just didn't have the time to try > understand it all AND do the rest of the kernel.) Of course the best woudl > be if Mr. Popov did the conversion but I believe he's incredibly busy at > the moment.. Certainly if someone else wants to make an effort at it. > they are welcome to do it.. otherwise I will eventually get to it. > (but I have no way to test them). > > I did hear a rumour that ntfs was also a casualty, but I also heard from > someone that it works so I'm not sure what to think.. I can;t test that > one either.. If it does crash, some core-dumps would be a good idea. ntfs definitely needs some more work. There are some places curproc is passed where a thread is expected, which generates warnings, etc. I was going to fix them, but Peter said NTFS was an official casualty and to leave it to Boris. -- John Baldwin -- http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ PGP Key: http://www.baldwin.cx/~john/pgpkey.asc "Power Users Use the Power to Serve!" - http://www.FreeBSD.org/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message