--eRtJSFbw+EEWtPj3
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Mon, Jun 25, 2007 at 08:06:37PM +0200, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 25, 2007 at 02:13:51PM +0100, Andrew Doran wrote:
> > I've been looking into simplifying the locking, as it's unclear what's
> > covered by the long term lock (B_BUSY) and the short term lock
> > (b_interlock). One thing I'd like to do is replace b_interlock with a
> > pointer to the interlock for the vnode that the buffer is currently
> > associated with.
>=20
> Is it really a good idea to make the vnode locking even more
> complicated?

Are you sure this will make vnode locking more complicated?

Take care,

Bill

--eRtJSFbw+EEWtPj3
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (NetBSD)

iD8DBQFGgAm4Wz+3JHUci9cRAiutAJ4uKRVbVw2kBS/MJpZuEpF7QN17BgCghSzs
xQp2z0YouASJCS+ke4PB2yc=
=wght
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--eRtJSFbw+EEWtPj3--