Re: fixing the vnode lifecycle

["Matt W. Benjamin" <matt%linuxbox.com@localhost>]

Perhaps both are acceptable.  Ie, permit an FS to opt-out, then
work on new shared primitives.

Matt

----- "David Holland" <dholland-tech%NetBSD.org@localhost> wrote:

> 
> Another model entirely, on the other hand, is to get rid of the
> vfs-level vnode cache and make each fs fully responsible for its own
> vnodes. This can also get rid of a lot of the mess; the problem then
> is that there's no obvious way to control how many inodes each fs is
> allowed to keep live. (And also it promotes C&P code, replicated
> bugs,
> and so on, which is why I don't think it's a good idea.)
> 
> -- 
> David A. Holland
> dholland%netbsd.org@localhost

-- 
Matt Benjamin
The Linux Box
206 South Fifth Ave. Suite 150
Ann Arbor, MI  48104

http://linuxbox.com

tel.  734-761-4689 
fax.  734-769-8938 
cel.  734-216-5309