Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2000 14:19:57 -0400 (EDT) From: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.ORG> To: Marius Bendiksen <mbendiks@eunet.no> Cc: Adrian Chadd <adrian@FreeBSD.ORG>, Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com>, Alfred Perlstein <bright@wintelcom.net>, freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Alterations to vops Message-ID: <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1000707141702.67890C-100000@fledge.watson.org> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.05.10007071936010.74828-100000@login-1.eunet.no>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 7 Jul 2000, Marius Bendiksen wrote: > Like I stated in the original post; currently, certain operations scan > through a number of blocks in kernel space. I would like to be able to > add an off_t to the argument list of said operations, set to VNOVAL by > the caller, then initialized by the VOP, and incremented by it on each > pass. The VOP will return a new error code (ERETRY) when the pass only > partially completed, and the library will iterate. VNOVAL is evil. This is not an opinion about the general point your making, just a comment on the poor design of vop_{get,set}attr. Right now, collisions between the usable data space of attributes and the VNOVAL constant can cause serious pain. For example, chowning a file to the integer value of VNOVAL :-). Ideally, in my mind, calls to vop_setattr() would be replaced with calls to vop_setextattr, allowing us to get rid of the VNOVAL use. That said, I'm not sure I expect that to happen, and there would be namespace issues if it did. robert@fledge.watson.org http://www.watson.org/~robert/ PGP key fingerprint: AF B5 5F FF A6 4A 79 37 ED 5F 55 E9 58 04 6A B1 TIS Labs at Network Associates, Safeport Network Services To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.NEB.3.96L.1000707141702.67890C-100000>