Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2012 23:50:03 +0200 From: Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> To: Mikolaj Golub <trociny@freebsd.org> Cc: "Robert N. M. Watson" <rwatson@freebsd.org>, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: unix domain sockets on nullfs(5) Message-ID: <20120218215003.GM3283@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> In-Reply-To: <86zkcfu9ac.fsf@kopusha.home.net> References: <86sjjobzmn.fsf@kopusha.home.net> <D1B8F00C-1E0D-4916-BD4B-FBCAE28E6F22@FreeBSD.org> <86fwfnti5t.fsf@kopusha.home.net> <CAOnPXZ_y5G6uEBWmfuH7qYBh%2B4Pw=O91ztCPEFCOTzWdCzx%2BRA@mail.gmail.com> <BBDE763A-F55E-453D-A503-2489C9040EF6@freebsd.org> <20120112215106.GC31224@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> <86hazntwmu.fsf@kopusha.home.net> <20120123031238.GL31224@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> <86zkcfu9ac.fsf@kopusha.home.net>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
[-- Attachment #1 --] On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 11:22:03PM +0200, Mikolaj Golub wrote: > After collecting all suggestions and additional testing I have got this patch > set: > > http://people.freebsd.org/~trociny/unp_prepare_reclaim.1.patch Including unpcb.h into vfs_subr.c looks too extreme. Put the prototype into vnode.h, possibly renaming the function to vfs_unp_reclaim. > http://people.freebsd.org/~trociny/unp_connect.LOCKSHARED.1.patch > http://people.freebsd.org/~trociny/VOP_UNP.3.patch I has a painting suggestion there, call the vops VOP_UNP_DETACH etc, otherwise it takes too much reading to understand that it is not undetach. > > It has survived some bind/connect/force umount stress testing revealing only > some issues that are also observed without patching. What are the issues ? [-- Attachment #2 --] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (FreeBSD) iEYEARECAAYFAk9AHQsACgkQC3+MBN1Mb4iZJQCg4UsFrZQCYVWuwIsyqxUHkBOF XoMAoMuVocnMre7LjNVmNXLLf4RYdNGa =e0BQ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----home | help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20120218215003.GM3283>