On 08/19/2014 10:58 PM, Andy Grover wrote:
On 08/19/2014 01:46 PM, Jerome Martin wrote:
What do you think?
So you're saying we have a simple BCL but we let an entity grab and hold
it continuously, so all future accesses need to go through the entity?
I am saying that if we do BCL, we need to understand that this is bound
to happen eventually. Either with an application misbehaving, or simply
a high-contention case or slow configfs IO operations. Some applications
will simply not honor the quick-release. And we cannot prevent them.
So going the BCL convention route means we need to accept this. Of
course this is a limitation, but it does create what you called a
safeguard, and has merits in terms of simplicity.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe target-devel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
