Date: Tue, 24 Aug 1999 22:28:10 -0700 (PDT) From: Sean Eric Fagan <sef@kithrup.com> To: hackers@freebsd.org Cc: cvs-committers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Locking in Vinum (was: Mandatory locking?) Message-ID: <199908250528.WAA16151@kithrup.com> In-Reply-To: <19990825113518.D83273.kithrup.freebsd.cvs-all@freebie.lemis.com> References: <199908250152.SAA16323@usr01.primenet.com>; from Terry Lambert on Wed, Aug 25, 1999 at 01:52:38AM %2B0000
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In article <19990825113518.D83273.kithrup.freebsd.cvs-all@freebie.lemis.com> you write: >Correct. I lock a stripe at a time. What people need to realize is that Greg is doing this locking in user mode. As such, he has two real options: 1. Implement a vinum-specific ioctl that locks a region of a file at the device level, or 2. Implement standard mandatory region locking, which damned near every OS in existence has, and which OSes which have existed for decades longer than unix has existed have always had. Now, because this _is_ (currently) a vinum-specific requirement, doing (1) is not all that unpalatable. However, it's at the wrong level (device driver, instead of file), and it is merely putting off the inevitable. Or does nobody wish to have working Linux and Solaris/x86 compatibility after all? That reason, if nothing else, is reason to design it, so it gets done correctly. The fact that Greg thinks it's necessary and desirable (and he has considerably more OS experience than a lot of the people who have decided it's a stupid idea) should alone say a lot for the idea. 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?199908250528.WAA16151>