--RE3pQJLXZi4fr8Xo
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Mon, Jun 21, 2004 at 11:01:18AM +0900, YAMAMOTO Takashi wrote:
> > > i don't think genfs_nolock is bad at all.
> >=20
> > ?? Faking locking is good?
>=20
> it's good in some cases because
> it allows filesystems to choose its own locking strategy.

I disagree. Whatever our locking methodology is, we should follow it. I=20
only see genfs_nolock() as useful in the kernel of the developer who is=20
transitioning our code to an "internal" locking methodology.

I don't think a file system can really choose to do something other than=20
our "real" locking method. That strikes me as being like changing which=20
side of the road vehicles drive on, and starting with just the trucks.

> > Changing how we do locking, however, I can see. I also know that other
> > OSs, like Solaris, don't do the external locking we do; all the locking=
 is
> > done in the file system. I'm sure there probably is something we can le=
arn=20
> > from them. However I'm not sure if it's really worth all the churn that=
=20
> > would imply.
>=20
> i meant, "vnode lock removal =3D=3D transition to fs-internal locking".
> sorry for confusing.

Oh, ok. No problem.

Take care,

Bill

--RE3pQJLXZi4fr8Xo
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (NetBSD)

iD8DBQFA1kRUWz+3JHUci9cRArcxAJsHY6f3CUMmZIbHJ+6ZlNbTuYbucwCeN1AU
xZrzjhMdQ8AvNs2K16NHejg=
=1kwE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--RE3pQJLXZi4fr8Xo--