[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: Improving RAIDframe Parity Handling: The Diff
On Tue, Nov 03, 2009 at 01:35:10PM -0500, Jed Davis wrote:
> So, here are new diffs:
> http://www.NetBSD.org/~jld/gsoc09-1103.diff (-current)
> http://www.NetBSD.org/~jld/gsoc09-1103-n5.diff (netbsd-5)
I've looked at the diffs. Here are my comments:
1.) You use "u_int" and "int" inside a structure which defines on
the on-disk data. I wonder whether "uint32_t" and "int32_t"
would be the better choice.
2.) rf_paritymap_test() should return a "bool".
3.) Can you please comment rf_paritymap_begin_region() and
4.) Could "lk_flags" be removed if you use atomic_ops(3) to update
the "flags" field of a parity map? Your locking looks safe
(because you stick to the defined order). But I feel somehow
uneasy about this.
Matthias Scheler http://zhadum.org.uk/
Main Index |
Thread Index |