In message <19990823162813.i83...@freebie.lemis.com>, Greg Lehey writes:
>>>> Why should it be made unavailable ? >>> >>> So that certain multiple accesses can be done atomically. >> >> You don't need that. You initialize a index to 0, and whenever the >> sector with that index is written, you increment it. >> >> At any one time you know that all parityblocks <= your index >> are valid. > >Sure, that's pretty much what I do in the situation you're thinking >about. But it won't work without locking. Take a look at >vinumrevive.c and vinumrequest.c. I still don't see the need for mandatory locking, or locking out user access in general... >>> I'm a little surprised that there's any objection to the concept of >>> mandatory locking. >> >> Too many of us have had wedged systems because of it I guess... > >Strange, I've probably used it more than anybody here, and I've never >had a wedged system. Of course, you need to use it appropriately. >'rm' can be a lethal tool :-) Well, maybe you were more lucky, I've had my share of troubles, and I think the very concept stinks... -- Poul-Henning Kamp FreeBSD coreteam member p...@freebsd.org "Real hackers run -current on their laptop." FreeBSD -- It will take a long time before progress goes too far! To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
