Subject: Re: pr 32535 followup
To: Bill Studenmund <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Chuck Silvers <email@example.com>
Date: 11/29/2006 10:32:34
On Wed, Nov 29, 2006 at 09:14:31AM -0800, Bill Studenmund wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 29, 2006 at 09:06:29AM -0800, Chuck Silvers wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 28, 2006 at 10:48:18AM -0800, Bill Studenmund wrote:
> > > Chuck Silvers has also proposed a fix which changes the locking protocol.
> > > Now, VOP_LOOKUP() won't unlock the parent. The patch is at
> > > ftp://ftp.netbsd.org/pub/NetBSD/misc/chs/lookup/diff.20061119 and there's
> > > a patch for 3.X in that directory.
> > >
> > > I think this fix is the right way to go in the long run. I'm uncomfortable
> > > though pulling this into 3.x as it's a big change. Actually, it's a big
> > > change with a number of other, little changes. On the flip side, though,
> > > not pulling this change into 3.X means pulling in vrele2() then retiring
> > > it in 4.X. :-(
> > I'm ok with either way for 3.x.
> Actually, with 4.x being rumored to branch this week, do we want do to
> your change for 4.x?
I would think so, yea.