From owner-freebsd-hackers Sun Mar 1 15:53:07 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA26805 for freebsd-hackers-outgoing; Sun, 1 Mar 1998 15:53:07 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from implode.root.com (implode.root.com [198.145.90.17]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA26791 for ; Sun, 1 Mar 1998 15:53:00 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from root@implode.root.com) Received: from implode.root.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by implode.root.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id PAA24569; Sun, 1 Mar 1998 15:50:22 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199803012350.PAA24569@implode.root.com> To: Terry Lambert cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: help - make world fails In-reply-to: Your message of "Sun, 01 Mar 1998 23:17:00 GMT." <199803012317.QAA04517@usr08.primenet.com> From: David Greenman Reply-To: dg@root.com Date: Sun, 01 Mar 1998 15:50:22 -0800 Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG >> Well, that's not good enough. Terry's patches haven't been committed, and >> there has to be a reason for that. > >My NFS patches being discussed don't do anything other than locks. > >There is an architectural issue here as to whether or not the advisory >locking should go to a veto-based interface. My arguments for this are: > >o Common code > >o Locks go to vnode instead of in core inode > >o locks off vnode helps with stacking if VOP_FINALVP is > implemented and used. This is pretty much a win for > union and agregate FS's *only* > >o NFS client locks need to be remembered locally so that > they can be reasserted in case of a server crash. This > is my way of saving the state. > >o NFS wire traffic is reduced, if the lock conflict is > between clients on the same machine (faster fail). > >o Ability to teat-and-not-set for multiplexing FS's (NFS > is a mux for local vs. remote locks, and unionfs is a > mux for local vs. local locks). As I see it, except for the last one on the list, the rest of the above are not arguments in favor of "veto-based" advisory locking since they can all be acheived without that. -DG David Greenman Core-team/Principal Architect, The FreeBSD Project To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message