Re: Pull tmpfs fix from NetBSD

2015-12-12 Thread Marc Espie
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 > > >

Re: Pull tmpfs fix from NetBSD

2015-12-11 Thread Bob Beck
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 ==

Re: Pull tmpfs fix from NetBSD

2015-12-11 Thread Michael McConville
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

Re: Pull tmpfs fix from NetBSD

2015-12-11 Thread Stefan Sperling
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

Re: Pull tmpfs fix from NetBSD

2015-12-11 Thread Theo de Raadt
> 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

Re: Pull tmpfs fix from NetBSD

2015-12-11 Thread Michael McConville
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

Re: Pull tmpfs fix from NetBSD

2015-12-11 Thread Stefan Sperling
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

Re: Pull tmpfs fix from NetBSD

2015-12-11 Thread Bob Beck
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

Re: Pull tmpfs fix from NetBSD

2015-12-11 Thread Michael McConville
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

Re: Pull tmpfs fix from NetBSD

2015-12-11 Thread Bob Beck
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

Pull tmpfs fix from NetBSD

2015-12-10 Thread Michael McConville
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