From owner-freebsd-hackers Fri Dec 21 14:56:38 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from cu518.adelaide.adsl.on.net (cu518.adelaide.adsl.on.net [150.101.236.10]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8EA6A37B423 for ; Fri, 21 Dec 2001 14:56:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from ns.aus.com (cu518.adsl.adelaide.on.net [127.0.0.1]) by cu518.adelaide.adsl.on.net (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id fBM15L713837; Sat, 22 Dec 2001 11:35:22 +1030 Message-ID: <3C23C80B.6030509@ns.aus.com> Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2001 10:08:51 +1030 From: Richard Sharpe Reply-To: rsharpe@ns.aus.com User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:0.9.4) Gecko/20010917 X-Accept-Language: en-us MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Alfred Perlstein Cc: rsharpe@ns.aus.com, FreeBSD-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Adding si_fd to struct __siginfo ... References: <3C23AF6E.90202@ns.aus.com> <20011221164429.U48837@elvis.mu.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Alfred Perlstein wrote: >* Richard Sharpe [011221 15:11] wrote: > >>Hi, >> >>One of my tasks is to add oplock support to FreeBSD so that we (Panasas) >>can allow correct caching of files by Windows clients in the presence of >>NFS clients using the same files. >> >>We have a preliminary implementation, based on the Linux implementation, >>but it is a gross hack because there is no way for the kernel, when it >>delivers a signal, to indicate the fd that caused delivery of the signal. >> >>Linux and Solaris have an fd field in struct siginfo_t which allows the >>kernel to indicate, for signals relating to files, to indicate which fd >>the signal relates to. >> >>I notice that in FreeBSD struct siginfo_t seems to have int >>__spare__[7]; and would like to use one of those spare fields as si_fd. >> >>While I can do that in our code base, if I want to contribute the OpLock >>code it would be useful if the FreeBSD community finds this change >>agreeable. >> >>Are there any counter suggestions or any big objections? >> > >There was already a big mess of a discussion about how this would >be much better done via kqueue than with realtime signals. > >I guess if you can get a working implementation that is compatible >with the existing interfaces it would work, however it's a _much_ >better idea to use kqueue to deliver this sort of notification. > >And yes, it has been discussed in the lists already. > OK, I will go and look at the discussion ... -- Richard Sharpe, rsharpe@ns.aus.com, LPIC-1 www.samba.org, www.ethereal.com, SAMS Teach Yourself Samba in 24 Hours, Special Edition, Using Samba To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message