Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2001 12:03:03 +0100 From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.freebsd.dk> To: Boris Popov <bp@butya.kz> Cc: freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG, freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: vnode interlock API Message-ID: <33407.981457383@critter> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 06 Feb 2001 17:00:03 %2B0600." <Pine.BSF.4.21.0102061638280.82511-100000@lion.butya.kz>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Sounds like something which should have been done long time ago... In message <Pine.BSF.4.21.0102061638280.82511-100000@lion.butya.kz>, Boris Popov writes: > 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) > > for RELENG_4 they will look like this: > >#define VI_LOCK(vp) simple_lock(&(vp)->v_interlock) >#define VI_UNLOCK(vp) simple_unlock(&(vp)->v_interlock) > > Any comments, suggestions ? > >-- >Boris Popov >http://www.butya.kz/~bp/ > > > >To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org >with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message > -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?33407.981457383>