Subject: Re: RFC: addition of B_MANAGED and B_NESTED to buf.h and vfs_bio.c
To: Jason Thorpe <thorpej@shagadelic.org>
From: Reinoud Zandijk <reinoud@netbsd.org>
List: tech-kern
Date: 01/05/2006 00:45:06
--9/eUdp+dLtKXvemk
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
On Wed, Jan 04, 2006 at 02:16:19PM -0800, Jason Thorpe wrote:
> On Jan 4, 2006, at 2:05 PM, Reinoud Zandijk wrote:
> >one of the goals was rather to un-muddy the buffer stuff i.e.
> >cleaning up
> >by trying to orthogonise buffer flags and actions.
>
> Except that getbuf() / brelse() imply the use of the caching
> mechanism. You then set a flag that says "oh, I'm just using this as
> an I/O descriptor", which basically makes brelse() mean nothing other
> than "pool_put()".
>
> So, why not just remain consistent with the other parts of the kernel
> that already use a buf as an I/O descriptor rather than adding
> something that isn't actually needed just so it can be ripped out
> later anyway?
maybe i'm too focused on performace or rather see stuff changed the sooner
the better.
What do you think about the B_NESTED? This would eventually go into the
iobuf part and is significant addition in functionality at practically no
cost.
With regards,
Reinoud
--9/eUdp+dLtKXvemk
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (NetBSD)
iQEVAwUBQ7xd+4KcNwBDyKpoAQJpJwf+LkUyViEKYE/ggxn8kwmUsg6Yv8YZONhV
yilmUIugchEIp/713aViguOaNDqgCcHlRxlsZFf6VYOn8hnLtBfF5kqCB5D4Pavu
nNYvMAjjJcaU+X9dJlNReou9dlj+E1JJMSbkwMLpK+HJByVBm8aeUBhHZJ/2MNLh
LzHJIsEZmTcoN6LSvIq8Y2Z4WN4SVcdZozXbqN1qvUFBPwsnw43NRlK7//liyc+r
+8Y5B1xHPivvbEUFBO2s3kh9onGJxTZouQEf71uy5BoL7zfvvAOgeWeJI7XmW0i8
BpcdZ0zVacrvYYzzvpwYyMk2PZnVjBySKdd59PmnakFWXRL4+0nU0g==
=eszM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--9/eUdp+dLtKXvemk--