From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on inbox.vuxu.org
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Received: (qmail 20690 invoked from network); 6 Jan 2021 19:26:11 -0000
Received: from 1ess.inri.net (216.126.196.35)
  by inbox.vuxu.org with ESMTPUTF8; 6 Jan 2021 19:26:11 -0000
Received: from mimir.eigenstate.org ([206.124.132.107]) by 1ess; Wed Jan  6 14:18:27 -0500 2021
Received: from abbatoir.fios-router.home (pool-74-101-2-6.nycmny.fios.verizon.net [74.101.2.6])
	by mimir.eigenstate.org (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTPSA id 358a439a (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA:256:NO)
	for <9front@9front.org>;
	Wed, 6 Jan 2021 11:11:33 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <3352C30E7FABA4B1547D228A5403FC9B@eigenstate.org>
To: 9front@9front.org
Date: Wed, 06 Jan 2021 11:11:31 -0800
From: ori@eigenstate.org
In-Reply-To: <4FD99002DC7ADF798DF538CA33F26565@felloff.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
List-ID: <9front.9front.org>
List-Help: <http://lists.9front.org>
X-Glyph: ➈
X-Bullshit: enhancement-based STM module-scale manager 
Subject: Re: [9front] mycroftiv's zrv and rfork V, patch for current 9front
Reply-To: 9front@9front.org
Precedence: bulk

Quoth cinap_lenrek@felloff.net:
> this implementation seemes flawed to me.
> 
> closesgrp() appears only to free the memory of the Srv*
> nodes, but doesnt actually free srv->chan, srv->owner
> and srv->name.
> 
> also the locking seems suspicious. as the global Srv*
> list was just replaced with per process one, but we'r
> still only have a single srvlock to serialize
> concurrent access to it.
> 
> so far, the srvgrp can only be reset or shared depending
> of the RFCSRVG flag. once you implement copying you'd
> need a lock per Sgrp. i'd prefer to have a lock per
> Sgrp right now and remove the global srvlock.
> 
> pexit() should move the sgrp = up->sgrp; up->sgrp = nil
> in the exiting qlock(&up->debug);... block instead of
> making its own.
> 
> why do we need /zrv? is there a new devzrv.c device that
> was missing in the diff?
> 
> --
> cinap
> 

On top of that, I think rfork flags aren't a very
nice semantic. What about reworking to

	bind '#s/clone' /srv

to create a new fork of a srv, without adding new
special namespace cases?

That also eliminates the need for zrv, since you
can just keep the old /srv bound somewhere else.