Thomas Schwinge <tho...@schwinge.name> writes: > Hi! > > On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 23:41:57 +0300, Maksym Planeta <mcsim.plan...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> Thomas Schwinge <tho...@schwinge.name> writes: >> > On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 22:40:22 +0300, Maksym Planeta >> > <mcsim.plan...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Samuel Thibault <samuel.thiba...@gnu.org> writes: >> >> >> >> > Thomas Schwinge, le Mon 26 Mar 2012 22:24:55 +0200, a écrit : >> >> >> > 1. >> >> >> > http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/hurd/hurd.git/log/?h=mplaneta/tmpfs/master >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> Someone to review the patches... :-/ >> >> > >> >> > Just a few comments. >> >> > >> >> >> Fix auto-terminating of tmpfs due to idle. >> >> > >> >> > Err, really? I'd rather not see my tmpfs fly away just because I've >> >> > left it dormant for some time. >> >> >> >> I meant that now it doesn't auto-terminate. >> > >> > Yes. But that should be possible to achieve very much simpler: just put >> > ``thread_timeout = server_timeout = 0;'' before diskfs_spawn_first_thread >> > is called. (Or am I missing something?) >> > >> >> Variables thread_timeout and server_timeout declared in >> ../libdiskfs/init-first.c and are static. > > Indeed. :-) Options: remove static, add two declarations to diskfs.h (I > don't really like that); add a new diskfs_spawn_first_thread_no_timeout > function (I don't really like that either); break the ABI (usually not > preferable either...), add the two timeout values to the existing > diskfs_spawn_first_thread, and add #defines for the default values in > diskfs.h. >
Than, why just not to remove "static" and do like you proposed before: > just put ``thread_timeout = server_timeout = 0;'' before > diskfs_spawn_first_thread is called. ? > The latter one is not as problematic as it sounds, as > diskfs_spawn_first_thread is really only invoked from tmpfs: all other > diskfs-based file systems go by using > libdiskfs/init-main.c:diskfs_init_main, which handles libstore setup and > then invokes diskfs_spawn_first_thread. So apart from tmpfs this would > just be an internal ABI change (and libdiskfs.so and tmpfs would even be > updated at the same time). > > I don't think any other libdiskfs-based translators would benefit from > being able to configure their timeout values -- all but tmpfs serialize > their state to the backing store, from where they can restore it after a > timeout has terminated the translator. > Or, if only tmpfs would benefit from ABI change, than why not to left all changes within tmpfs code, like I did? Regards, Maksym Planeta.
