Re: More duplicate code, vnode locking question

[Elad Efrat <elad%NetBSD.org@localhost>]

On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 1:57 AM, Antti Kantee <pooka%cs.hut.fi@localhost> wrote:

> That is an unnecessarily complex interface.  Just require that the vnode
> is always (un)locked.

Okay, I'll do that.

>> Also, it seems that some file-systems call VOP_OPEN() without devvp
>> being locked. Compare, for example, ffs_mount() and efs_mount(). Is
>> this possible, or am I missing something? :)
>
> specfs doesn't do locking so in practise it doesn't matter.  If it did,
> you could trick the kernel into deadlock (not a very likely scenario,
> but)... so it's your call really: violate the locking protocol of VOPs
> or violate the locking order of vnodes.

I'm not sure I like that idea, but oh well...

> It's a shame that you rushed the common_chmod stuff in.  dholland has been
> working on componentizing certain parts of file systems, and committing
> things with allowing less than two days for review is too quick.  Even I
> would've wanted to review the diff, but have been quite busy in the last
> few days.

Just as David is doing work in one area, I am doing work in another
area. If David is seriously affected by my changes, I hope he knows he
can always mail me and we'll work it out. I think both of us have
similar goals, so cooperating should not be a problem.

Thanks,

-e.