On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 10:05:14AM -0700, 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=144694603617544=2
> >
>
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=144694603617544=2
>
> We have very few local changes to tmpfs and we share the
> KASSERT(de->td_node ==
Bob Beck wrote:
> Stability before performance. Tmpfs does not have the former yet.
ok mmcc@ for your PR_ZERO diff, as long as there's a comment added about
the performance impact and the potential to back out in the future.
I think it'd still be worthwhile to add the NULL assignment from
On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 04:47:16PM -0500, Michael McConville wrote:
> Stefan Sperling wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 04:05:49PM -0500, Michael McConville wrote:
> > > Bob Beck wrote:
> > > > Stability before performance. Tmpfs does not have the former yet.
> > >
> > > ok mmcc@ for your
> 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?
No performance impact at all.
until the next time an uninitialized field occurs in there!
then maybe
Stefan Sperling wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 04:05:49PM -0500, Michael McConville wrote:
> > Bob Beck wrote:
> > > Stability before performance. Tmpfs does not have the former yet.
> >
> > ok mmcc@ for your PR_ZERO diff, as long as there's a comment added
> > about the performance impact and
On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 04:05:49PM -0500, Michael McConville wrote:
> Bob Beck wrote:
> > Stability before performance. Tmpfs does not have the former yet.
>
> ok mmcc@ for your PR_ZERO diff, as long as there's a comment added about
> the performance impact and the potential to back out in the
tmpfs actrually already must diverege from netbsd. we can not just
blithly accept changes from there.. our kernel midlayers are very
different.
tmpfs actually does not work very well right now.
On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 2:47 PM, Michael McConville wrote:
> Stefan Sperling
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=144694603617544=2
> >
> > We have very few local changes to tmpfs and we
Stability before performance. Tmpfs does not have the former yet.
On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 12:59 PM, Michael McConville 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
Here's the PR:
https://gnats.netbsd.org/50381
And the commit:
https://marc.info/?l=netbsd-source-changes=144694603617544=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
11 matches
Mail list logo