Marco Gerards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> - When diskfs_cached_lookup is called, but it is not clear yet if the
>directory is locked. Because this is where the node is crated and
>locked, it should know if it will be locked. I propose to add the
>flag that was discussed earlier to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
> 1) Change diskfs to have a special "fatfs" option (perhaps called
>something like "diskfs_metadata_in_directories" or whatnot). If
>the fatfs flag is set, then the directory must always be locked
>when diskfs_write_disknode is called.
Marco Gerards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > 1) Change diskfs to have a special "fatfs" option (perhaps called
> >something like "diskfs_metadata_in_directories" or whatnot). If
> >the fatfs flag is set, then the directory must always be locked
> >when diskfs_write_disknode is called
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
> Marco Gerards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> It already is the same lock, that is causing the problem. We don't
>> know if it is locked or not when write_node is called. I don't see
>> any change here.
>
> Huh? In diskfs, every node has one l
Marco Gerards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The only issue that could be a problem is that libdiskfs can access
> the directory as file (readonly). Perhaps it is possible to modify
> libdiskfs in a way so it does not allow io_read and io_map for
> directories when a node is a directory (and make
Marco Gerards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It already is the same lock, that is causing the problem. We don't
> know if it is locked or not when write_node is called. I don't see
> any change here.
Huh? In diskfs, every node has one lock. That lock is not the same
as the lock on the director
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
>> In fatfs both the dir ent. and the inode are stored in the same
>> (physical) location. The problem with the current code is that the
>> same node can be locked twice, once as directory entry and once as
>> inode.
>
> I am inclined to think that
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
> Marco Gerards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> The only issue that could be a problem is that libdiskfs can access
>> the directory as file (readonly). Perhaps it is possible to modify
>> libdiskfs in a way so it does not allow io_read and io_map
Marco Gerards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The only issue that could be a problem is that libdiskfs can access
> the directory as file (readonly). Perhaps it is possible to modify
> libdiskfs in a way so it does not allow io_read and io_map for
> directories when a node is a directory (and make
Marco Gerards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The problem here is that diskfs_nput is called from almost anywhere in
> both libdiskfs and the filesystem. So it is impossible to make any
> assumption if the directory holding the node is locked or not. I
> think everyone would agree that adding a fl
Hi,
After not working on fatfs for a long time I picked it up again. The
current problem fatfs has is that write support does not yet work.
This is because of a problem in the locking. I hope you all still
know about this issue, if it is not clear I can explain again or point
at the previous dis
11 matches
Mail list logo
