Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2005 20:21:46 +0100 From: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> To: Scott Long <scottl@samsco.org> Cc: Ceri Davies <ceri@submonkey.net> Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/fs/hpfs hpfs_vnops.c src/sys/fs/msdosfs msdosfs_denode.c src/sys/fs/nullfs null_vnops.c src/sys/fs/smbfs smbfs_node.c src/sys/gnu/ext2fs ext2_inode.c src/sys/isofs/cd9660 cd9660_node.c src/sys/kern vfs_subr.c src/sys/sys vnode.h ... Message-ID: <62199.1109704906@critter.freebsd.dk> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 01 Mar 2005 12:15:51 MST." <4224BF67.1070300@samsco.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <4224BF67.1070300@samsco.org>, Scott Long writes: >Ceri Davies wrote: >> We already told everyone that we wouldn't break for 5.4. >> > >All that's been talked about so far with RE with regards to 5.4 is the >merging of the fdesk locking, which I believe is complete now. No >mention has been made of VFS locking. If there are plans to do that, we >need to talk about them right away. I reverted the vrecycle() MFC already, if we want to make the decision, that is not what we should base it on. If we do give up on being KLD compatible with filesystems between 5.3 and 5.4 we will not be able to bring all of the VFS work in -current into RELENG_5, but we could bring in a lot of interesting stuff, from my hand: vnode bypass for devices vnode bypass for fifos mount/nmount kernel side migration. root-mount simplification. (I'll let jeffr flog his own wares.) I personally am pretty indifferent to which path we take. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?62199.1109704906>