On Wed, Jun 29, 2005 at 09:42:41AM +0900, YAMAMOTO Takashi wrote:
> > ok, I busted that when I did the UBC stuff then.
> > it was not my intent to protect anything with the global lock.
> > it would be good for us to avoid making this situation worse by
> > adding more usages that are protected only by the global lock.
> > 
> > -Chuck
> 
> then i think it's appropriate to introduce a small lock in ufs inode.
> protecting it by VOP_LOCK is difficult because of
> the locking order constraint you mentioned.

preferably we can find an existing lock to use for this rather than
adding a new one.  I haven't yet looked enough at this part of the
vnode locking scheme to say whether any of them would be satisfactory,
though.

-Chuck