Stability before performance. Tmpfs does not have the former yet.
On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 12:59 PM, Michael McConville <mm...@mykolab.com> wrote: > Bob Beck wrote: >> On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 01:09:30AM -0500, Michael McConville wrote: >> > Here's the PR: >> > >> > https://gnats.netbsd.org/50381 >> > >> > And the commit: >> > >> > https://marc.info/?l=netbsd-source-changes&m=144694603617544&w=2 >> > >> > We have very few local changes to tmpfs and we share the >> > KASSERT(de->td_node == NULL), so I think this applies to us. >> > >> > Thoughts? ok? >> > >> > >> > Index: sys/tmpfs/tmpfs_subr.c >> > =================================================================== >> > RCS file: /cvsroot/src/sys/fs/tmpfs/tmpfs_subr.c,v >> > retrieving revision 1.96.4.1 >> > retrieving revision 1.96.4.1.2.1 >> > diff -u -p -r1.96.4.1 -r1.96.4.1.2.1 >> > --- sys/fs/tmpfs/tmpfs_subr.c 22 Dec 2014 02:05:08 -0000 >> > 1.96.4.1 >> > +++ sys/fs/tmpfs/tmpfs_subr.c 8 Nov 2015 01:27:10 -0000 >> > 1.96.4.1.2.1 >> > @@ -451,6 +451,7 @@ tmpfs_alloc_dirent(tmpfs_mount_t *tmp, c >> > nde->td_namelen = len; >> > memcpy(nde->td_name, name, len); >> > nde->td_seq = TMPFS_DIRSEQ_NONE; >> > + nde->td_node = NULL; /* for asserts */ >> > >> > *de = nde; >> > return 0; >> > >> >> Well, that diff won't apply directly, and in my opinion this is a >> safter way, considering the tmpfs code, to accomplish the same thing. > > It applies directly, unless I'm missing something. I just forgot to > share the OpenBSD diff, so the file path is different (drop the fs dir). > > That said, using M_ZERO does sound like a safety improvement. However, > that also looks like a big struct (in the process of getting an actual > number). Thoughts on the performance impact? >
