[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: tstile syndrome
On Sep,Sunday 13 2009, at 11:26 PM, David Holland wrote:
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 03:14:09PM -0700, Jason Thorpe wrote:
Such as? Please give clear examples. Moving the locks to below the
layer does not change any of the ordering constraints or any of the
hard problems (vnode recycle, rename, etc.) but only forces cutting
and pasting 30 copies of what was previously FS-independent code
Not true at all. In Mac OS X, there is no exposed vnode-level
at the VFS layer or in the VFS<->file system interface. Everything
handled at the lower layers.
How does this simplify the hard problems (vnode recycle, rename,
I think that ZFS is nice example how rename can be handled look at
Please give clear examples.
Also, how does it work with layers? And how do you make atomic
create/mkdir work correctly?
I think that you should provide working example, because AFAIK current
locking scheme doesn't work e.g. unionfs. Asking others to prove that
their solution works, when it doesn't work, now doesn't seems right to
me. In ZFS almost all locking was pushed to the FS level and it works.
Main Index |
Thread Index |