Thus spake Mark Santcroos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Tue, Jan 21, 2003 at 01:33:01AM -0800, David Schultz wrote: > > Thus spake Mark Santcroos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > Yes, that is also what I meant. We now have a swapoff() system call that > > > does all the work itself. > > > > > > My idea was to split that up: > > > > > > /* turn of swap device */ > > > static int swapoff_one(struct swdevt *sp) > > > { > > > /* Do all things that we don't want to know about outside this function > > > */ > > > } > > > > > > /* turn off all swap devices */ > > > int swapoff_all() > > > { > > > int index; > > > struct swdevt *sp; > > > > > > for (sp = swdevt, index = 0; index < nswdev; index++, sp++) > > > swapoff_one(sp); > > > } > > > > > > So the swapoff() system call would call swapoff_one() and my code in > > > kern/kern_swsuspend.c would call swapoff_all(). > > > > See swapoff(8), in particular the -a flag. > > I'm aware of that, but imho it doesn't suite my purpose. Are you strongly > against having such code inside the kernel?
In that case, I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to do. There's already a sysctl interface to get the names of all the swap devices in the system, and from there you can call swapoff(2) on each one. Anyway, it doesn't really bother me to add similar functionality to the kernel if that seems useful, but it's also not my decision. Perhaps if you posted patches, someone could make more specific comments. To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message