Re: Fileassoc locking

[Mindaugas Rasiukevicius <rmind%netbsd.org@localhost>]

Elad Efrat <elad%NetBSD.org@localhost> wrote:
> Let's try to separate the question: Do you see anything wrong with the
> locking protocol now in use? I.e. if the same thing was done using
> rwlocks or what have you, would it be "okay"? (Assume that the purpose
> is to provide locking in fileassoc, rather than provide the *best*
> locking in fileassoc.)

Your first version was full of deadlocks and some other bugs, while the new
patch has unnecessary complication and mess.  Nobody is saying it should be
"best locking", but currently it is not "good enough" state.

As mentioned earlier, rwlock should be suitable for fileassoc_table (you
still may need reference counting elsewhere, though).  Further improvements
might come next.

-- 
Mindaugas