Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998 12:12:40 +0900 (JST) From: Michael Hancock <michaelh@cet.co.jp> To: Love <lha@e.kth.se> Cc: freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG, kom-arla@stacken.kth.se Subject: Re: deadfs in FreeBSD 3.0/current ? Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.95LJ1.1b3.981026114600.296B-100000@sv01.cet.co.jp> In-Reply-To: <am3e8c6523.fsf@zinfandel.e.kth.se>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 25 Oct 1998, Love wrote: > > > Should we bake our own dead_vnodeops_p that is really dead vnodes ? > > > > I don't know. > > I think we dont talk about the same thing. > > All I want is a vnodeops that dead, they shouldn't do anything. We thought > that dead_vnodeops_p was written just for this, guess we was wrong. Yes, dead_vnodeops are for when you want the vfs to reclaim the vnode. If you want noop_vnodeops then you need to roll your own. > We dont want to do any special vnode management. > I consider it a bug if on of the vnodeops make the vfs sleep forever. If the vfs were a userland interface then yes, but since this is the kernel you need to know how to use it without stopping the kernel. If the kernel were object-oriented then dead_vnodeops would be hidden from you. For a userland interface to deadfs man revoke(2). Regards, Mike To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-fs" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.95LJ1.1b3.981026114600.296B-100000>