Re: Locking in disk(9) api

[jnemeth%victoria.tc.ca@localhost (John Nemeth)]

On Apr 15,  8:02pm, Michael van Elst wrote:
} haaaad%gmail.com@localhost (Adam Hamsik) writes:
} 
} >After some discussion I think that disk(9) api should be changed to =
} >manage locking by itself and to not require explicit locking from users. =
} >There are some options which can be used in this case,]
} 
} So far, all users have private locks and the disk(9) data is seen
} as part of the device instance and is protected by such a private lock.
} I'm not convinced that you need a separate lock just for disk(9) data.

     Aren't these the stats displayed by iostat(8) [-dDx]?  Do we need
locking shared with the things that read the stats?  Or, is it
considered to be okay if the reader gets stats that are in flux?

}-- End of excerpt from Michael van Elst