Date: Sun, 01 Mar 1998 15:50:22 -0800 From: David Greenman <dg@root.com> To: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com> Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: help - make world fails Message-ID: <199803012350.PAA24569@implode.root.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 01 Mar 1998 23:17:00 GMT." <199803012317.QAA04517@usr08.primenet.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>> 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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199803012350.PAA24569>