Subject: Re: nullfs and panic: locking against myself
To: None <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Ty Sarna <email@example.com>
Date: 01/04/1998 14:30:06
In article <Pine.NEB.3.96.980104124506.16734Bfirstname.lastname@example.org> you write:
> It seems to me that the unionfs might do a better job if it had a stateless
> file access mechanism. Hrm, who knows.
Many locking problems could be solved by using a message-based protocol
in the kernel, and putting each mountpoint in its own thread. This is
what AmigaOS did, and it worked pretty well (modulo a few problems
specific to that implementation, like poor provisions for *un*-mounting
things). It'd also make it easier to do userland VFS servers.
If we ever get SMP, that could have otehr benefits as well. 'Course,
it'd be a huge amount of work. I suspect things like unionfs and nullfs
would wind up being rewritten from scratch, since pretty much everything
they do is tightly wrapped around the existing in-kernel VFS API.