Date: Fri, 26 Nov 1999 16:21:07 +0100 From: Eivind Eklund <eivind@FreeBSD.ORG> To: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com> Cc: fs@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: namei() and freeing componentnames Message-ID: <19991126162107.C44210@bitbox.follo.net> In-Reply-To: <199911241819.LAA19803@usr08.primenet.com>; from tlambert@primenet.com on Wed, Nov 24, 1999 at 06:19:52PM %2B0000 References: <19991112000359.A256@bitbox.follo.net> <199911241819.LAA19803@usr08.primenet.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Nov 24, 1999 at 06:19:52PM +0000, Terry Lambert wrote: > The main grossness comes from the use of "goto" statements > and targets in the macro definitions. This can be alleviated > be incorporating the path name free into the "bail out" case, > and preinitializing the path name buffer pointer to NULL so > that it can be tested for validity on a premature exit. I've already done this in my patches :) > I also think that the primary evil of the additional VOP is that > it takes the code further from where it needs to be. The abomination > that is NFS cookies is a result of overloading the VOP_LOOKUP code > in order to obtain directory restart, when the underlying FS's > directory entry block entry (struct dirent) is larger than the > one that you proxy over the wire. > > I think that the correct way to deal with this is to define an > externalization VOP seperate from the VOP_LOOKUP, which will > do the data externalization for you. I do not get this. Could you give a few more details of what change(s) you are thinking of? E.g, a short description of what VOP you want, including what input parameters and output parameters you see for it? Eivind. 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?19991126162107.C44210>