--AqCDj3hiknadvR6t
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Thu, Jun 24, 2004 at 08:58:19PM -0700, Gordon Waidhofer wrote:
> >=20
> > In terms of getting to this, I think I'd much prefer moving to internal=
=20
> > locking.
>=20
> I'd vote for that, I think. Does internal and
> advisory/non-exclusive mean the same thing?

I don't think so. Well, internal may mean the same thing as non-exclusive. =
=20
Advisory, though, to me means something different. The file systems have a
choice as to what they do. I'm not giving file systems a choice in the
change I propose. ;-)

> > One of the bigest problems I encountered when getting layered=20
> > file systems working was ambiguity in what was was happeneing with=20
> > locking. So I pushed everything to use exclusive real locks; to be=20
> > consistent (and a bit facist). If we go to making locks advisory, I'm=
=20
> > concerned that things would get ambiguous again, and we're back in a me=
ss.=20
>=20
> That helps explain things a lot. Thank you.
> I don't know anything about the layered file
> system stuff, but now I know what to worry about.
> I'll bet that's a good -- and illuminating -- war story.

Yeah. It was irritating.

My main thought is we should figure out what we're doing, and be forceful=
=20
(aggressive, obnoxious) about making everything follow it. :-)

Take care,

Bill

--AqCDj3hiknadvR6t
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (NetBSD)

iD8DBQFA27f+Wz+3JHUci9cRAiDJAJ459zBM88uGG5gKEV92Fi2EeTraswCbBLBN
2YS72zhFMXBf2tHefv/NHHQ=
=bOOd
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--AqCDj3hiknadvR6t--