Date: Wed, 24 Jun 1998 06:07:19 +0900 (JST) From: Michael Hancock <michaelh@cet.co.jp> To: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com> Cc: Matthew.Alton@anheuser-busch.com, FreeBSD-fs@FreeBSD.ORG, Hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, Scott.Smallie@anheuser-busch.com Subject: Re: Stackable filesystems and SunOS 4.1.1 Message-ID: <Pine.SV4.3.95.980624054103.24125F-100000@parkplace.cet.co.jp> In-Reply-To: <199806230354.UAA06135@usr09.primenet.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 23 Jun 1998, Terry Lambert wrote: > Do I have to proxy the grotesqueries that are the cookie interface, > instead of spliting the directory lookup, directory entry copyout, > the nameifree() asymmetry, etc.? Then it's about twice the work. I agree that the way the path buf is being freed is bogus. This becomes obvious when you look at vop_abortop implementations for ffs, ext2fs, etc. IMHO, if you freshen up your nameifree() patches without changing goto label names, exit points, whitespace style, and variables names in the FreeBSD source base; then you will have a better chance of getting the code committed. It makes it easier to review the patches and it will also be easier to track enhancements from other BSDs if you do it this way. Also, I think testset was a pretty cool tool for testing these changes. Did you port it to current? I used this as a base for testvn. Check out ~mch on freefall. Regards, Mike Hancock 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.SV4.3.95.980624054103.24125F-100000>