Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2013 22:33:11 +0300 From: Andriy Gapon <avg@FreeBSD.org> To: Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> Cc: freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Deadlock in nullfs/zfs somewhere Message-ID: <51E99477.1030308@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20130719184243.GM5991@kib.kiev.ua> References: <CAJ-VmokR8jJpdRc_kBJzhW4_R1pJnj3UPfsG5ANpq-kEGwCP9g@mail.gmail.com> <51E67F54.9080800@FreeBSD.org> <CAJ-Vmonk2HAzX38-mbL8hwxiUfL6JyJrMTq0dTBctW=P4dfyEQ@mail.gmail.com> <51E7B686.4090509@FreeBSD.org> <20130718112814.GA5991@kib.kiev.ua> <51E7F05A.5020609@FreeBSD.org> <20130718185215.GE5991@kib.kiev.ua> <51E91277.3070309@FreeBSD.org> <20130719103025.GJ5991@kib.kiev.ua> <51E95CDD.7030702@FreeBSD.org> <20130719184243.GM5991@kib.kiev.ua>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
on 19/07/2013 21:42 Konstantin Belousov said the following: > Then, you cannot use VFS suspension. Or, in other words, you are directed > to abuse the VFS interface. I assure you that any changes to the interface > would not take into account such abuse and probably break your hack. So what would be your recommendation about this problem? Should we add another flavor of VFS suspension? The one that would mean "all external accesses to this fs must be put on hold", but would not imply "this fs is frozen". -- Andriy Gapon
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?51E99477.1030308>