In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 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
[EMAIL PROTECTED] "Real hackers run -current on their laptop."
FreeBSD -- It will take a long time before progress goes too far!
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
