[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: kern/41068: tmpfs assertion
The following reply was made to PR kern/41068; it has been noted by GNATS.
From: Andrew Doran <ad%netbsd.org@localhost>
Subject: Re: kern/41068: tmpfs assertion
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2009 19:16:26 +0000
On Wed, Apr 08, 2009 at 10:10:05AM +0000, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 06, 2009 at 02:00:07PM +0000, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
> > >> This cookie scheme is clearly not workable.
> > >>
> > >> Why doesn't it just assign sequence numbers to each node or
> > >
> > > Because Linux compat would fall apart with that rather badly.
> > Linux compat would fall over on small integers? What on earth are they
> > doing?
> What small numbers do you have in mind? If you don't want to do all the
> dance with checking for duplicates, you have to use 64bit numbers.
> ...and those are a problem for 32bit readdir applications.
It could be solved by creating a vmem. See subr_percpu.c. This would give
mostly lockless allocation of IDs and could also be used for inode numbers.
Main Index |
Thread Index |