In message , Alfred P
erlstein writes:
>
>
>On Fri, 27 Aug 1999, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
>
>>
>> Uhm, have any of you actually ever looked at src/sys/kern/vnode_if.src ?
>
>I can't really tell if you are commenting on the diffs I provided or
>if you are commmenting on the comments I have recieved
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Alfred P
erlstein writes:
>
>
>On Fri, 27 Aug 1999, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
>
>>
>> Uhm, have any of you actually ever looked at src/sys/kern/vnode_if.src ?
>
>I can't really tell if you are commenting on the diffs I provided or
>if you are commmenting on the comm
On Fri, 27 Aug 1999, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
>
> Uhm, have any of you actually ever looked at src/sys/kern/vnode_if.src ?
I can't really tell if you are commenting on the diffs I provided or
if you are commmenting on the comments I have recieved, or both.
Either way, could you elaborate a bi
On Fri, 27 Aug 1999, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
>
> Uhm, have any of you actually ever looked at src/sys/kern/vnode_if.src ?
I can't really tell if you are commenting on the diffs I provided or
if you are commmenting on the comments I have recieved, or both.
Either way, could you elaborate a b
Uhm, have any of you actually ever looked at src/sys/kern/vnode_if.src ?
Poul-Henning
In message <199908272018.qaa22...@shekel.mcl.cs.columbia.edu>, Erez Zadok write
s:
>In message <199908261727.kaa23...@apollo.backplane.com>, Matthew Dillon writes:
>[...]
>> I would ask two things though:
>
In message <199908261727.kaa23...@apollo.backplane.com>, Matthew Dillon writes:
[...]
> I would ask two things though:
>
> * First, please add comprehensive /* */ comments in front of each
> vfsnop_*() procedure explaining what it does, why it returns what
> it returns,
Uhm, have any of you actually ever looked at src/sys/kern/vnode_if.src ?
Poul-Henning
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Erez Zadok write
s:
>In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Matthew Dillon writes:
>[...]
>> I would ask two things though:
>>
>> * First, please add comprehensive /* */ comm
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Matthew Dillon writes:
[...]
> I would ask two things though:
>
> * First, please add comprehensive /* */ comments in front of each
> vfsnop_*() procedure explaining what it does, why it returns what
> it returns, locking requirements (if
:>
:> I've done a quick once-over of your patch. From the point of view of
:> the work I'm doing and the work Kirk will be doing later on, I do
:> not think the patch will cause any problems since you are adding new
:> VOPs for the most part rather then modifying (too many) existi
>
> However, dt suggested I make VFS_CHECKEXP a VOP instead of VFS, my only
> gripe is that exportability is determined by the filesystem, _then_ the
> vnode, making it more of a VFS op imo.
I think dt is right here; the issue is that the operation is performed
on a vnode, not on a filesystem, a
On Thu, 26 Aug 1999, Matthew Dillon wrote:
> :I've posted 2 times asking for someone to review these diffs:
> :
> :http://big.endian.org/~bright/freebsd/in_progress/vfs-fhsyscall.diff
> :
> :Am I to take it that silence is accpetance? I'll be committing this
> :to -current tonight or tomorrow un
On Thu, 26 Aug 1999, Dmitrij Tejblum wrote:
> Just a few comments...
>
> > 2) The casting of VFS ops to eopnotsupp() has been removed and
> > vfs_nop*() functions have been put into kern/vfs_default.c
> >
> >This makes it more clear that certain VFS-ops are giving default
> >behavi
:I've posted 2 times asking for someone to review these diffs:
:
:http://big.endian.org/~bright/freebsd/in_progress/vfs-fhsyscall.diff
:
:Am I to take it that silence is accpetance? I'll be committing this
:to -current tonight or tomorrow unless I get feedback.
:
:See attached email for details.
:
:>
:> I've done a quick once-over of your patch. From the point of view of
:> the work I'm doing and the work Kirk will be doing later on, I do
:> not think the patch will cause any problems since you are adding new
:> VOPs for the most part rather then modifying (too many) exist
>
> However, dt suggested I make VFS_CHECKEXP a VOP instead of VFS, my only
> gripe is that exportability is determined by the filesystem, _then_ the
> vnode, making it more of a VFS op imo.
I think dt is right here; the issue is that the operation is performed
on a vnode, not on a filesystem,
On Thu, 26 Aug 1999, Matthew Dillon wrote:
> :I've posted 2 times asking for someone to review these diffs:
> :
> :http://big.endian.org/~bright/freebsd/in_progress/vfs-fhsyscall.diff
> :
> :Am I to take it that silence is accpetance? I'll be committing this
> :to -current tonight or tomorrow u
On Thu, 26 Aug 1999 11:45:47 -0400, Bill Fumerola wrote:
> This would be post #3 of the same code and changes that no-one has
> reponded to.
I hear you, and I was aware of that when I made my comments. Basically,
it's a waste of time saying such a thing, so either be prepared to wait
longer, or
Just a few comments...
> 2) The casting of VFS ops to eopnotsupp() has been removed and
> vfs_nop*() functions have been put into kern/vfs_default.c
>
>This makes it more clear that certain VFS-ops are giving default
>behavior, either returning automatic success or returning EOPNOTSU
On Thu, 26 Aug 1999, Sheldon Hearn wrote:
> Also, I'd suggest that it's a bad idea to say "if I get no feedback
> before tonight, I'm committing". I think this applies even if it's not
> the first time you've asked for review. Basically, timezones and stuff
> make for a situation where such an e-m
On Thu, 26 Aug 1999, Dmitrij Tejblum wrote:
> Just a few comments...
>
> > 2) The casting of VFS ops to eopnotsupp() has been removed and
> > vfs_nop*() functions have been put into kern/vfs_default.c
> >
> >This makes it more clear that certain VFS-ops are giving default
> >behav
:I've posted 2 times asking for someone to review these diffs:
:
:http://big.endian.org/~bright/freebsd/in_progress/vfs-fhsyscall.diff
:
:Am I to take it that silence is accpetance? I'll be committing this
:to -current tonight or tomorrow unless I get feedback.
:
:See attached email for details.
On Thu, 26 Aug 1999 11:45:47 -0400, Bill Fumerola wrote:
> This would be post #3 of the same code and changes that no-one has
> reponded to.
I hear you, and I was aware of that when I made my comments. Basically,
it's a waste of time saying such a thing, so either be prepared to wait
longer, o
Just a few comments...
> 2) The casting of VFS ops to eopnotsupp() has been removed and
> vfs_nop*() functions have been put into kern/vfs_default.c
>
>This makes it more clear that certain VFS-ops are giving default
>behavior, either returning automatic success or returning EOPNOTS
On Thu, 26 Aug 1999, Sheldon Hearn wrote:
> Also, I'd suggest that it's a bad idea to say "if I get no feedback
> before tonight, I'm committing". I think this applies even if it's not
> the first time you've asked for review. Basically, timezones and stuff
> make for a situation where such an e-
On Thu, 26 Aug 1999 08:28:29 GMT, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> Am I to take it that silence is accpetance? I'll be committing this
> to -current tonight or tomorrow unless I get feedback.
Recent discussions with bde and eivind indicate that at least some of
the code you're about to touch has one
I've posted 2 times asking for someone to review these diffs:
http://big.endian.org/~bright/freebsd/in_progress/vfs-fhsyscall.diff
Am I to take it that silence is accpetance? I'll be committing this
to -current tonight or tomorrow unless I get feedback.
See attached email for details.
thank y
On Thu, 26 Aug 1999 08:28:29 GMT, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> Am I to take it that silence is accpetance? I'll be committing this
> to -current tonight or tomorrow unless I get feedback.
Recent discussions with bde and eivind indicate that at least some of
the code you're about to touch has one
I've posted 2 times asking for someone to review these diffs:
http://big.endian.org/~bright/freebsd/in_progress/vfs-fhsyscall.diff
Am I to take it that silence is accpetance? I'll be committing this
to -current tonight or tomorrow unless I get feedback.
See attached email for details.
thank
28 matches
Mail list logo
