Re: Improving RAIDframe Parity Handling: The Diff

[Matthias Scheler <tron%zhadum.org.uk@localhost>]

On Sat, Nov 07, 2009 at 11:23:25AM +0000, Matthias Scheler wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 05, 2009 at 12:34:41PM -0500, Jed Davis wrote:
> > > 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.
> > 
> > I think it could; at the time I might not have known I wasn't going to
> > wind up putting more fields under it, or something along those lines,
> > but at this point I think the change can be made.
> 
> I think it might be worthwhile to do that because a single atomic
> operation will be cheaper.

BTW: this is only a suggestion for a minor optimisation, not a required
     change before you commit.

I'm using your "netbsd-5" patch on my server since a few hours now
and the system works fine so far.

        Kind regards

-- 
Matthias Scheler                                  http://zhadum.org.uk/