Roland McGrath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > It seems reasonable to me to leave it up to the filesystem-specific code to > decide what nodes it might need to lock, and just give it enough > information to avoid deadlock. I have in my tree a slightly different > change that adds a struct node * argument to diskfs_cached_lookup instead > of a flag, indicating the directory node (or none if null) that the caller > has locked. I think that by using this the special case for ".." in > libdiskfs/name-cache.c can be removed. I have changes that add the > argument, remove the ".." special case for unlocking in > diskfs_check_lookup_cache, and instead makes each diskfs_cached_lookup > implementation check for the lookup matching the already-locked node.
Ok, I've now had a chance to think more about this. This is basically sure to be wrong, at least, it will suffer from the consistency problems that I mentioned in the previous message I sent. I will think about how to make fatfs work, but I don't think this kind of "solution" is at all right. _______________________________________________ Bug-hurd mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-hurd
