On Tue, Dec 25, 2012 at 12:44:22PM +0200, Konstantin Belousov wrote: > On Mon, Dec 24, 2012 at 12:04:03PM -0800, Alfred Perlstein wrote: > > On 12/24/12 11:24 AM, Adrian Chadd wrote: > > > ... why'd we break the KBI in a stable branch? > > > > > I am not sure either. > > > > I think a single VOP for nullfs (while ugly) would have sufficed. > No, it doesn't. > > Even if it would be sufficient, having a switch right after the > vtable call is silly. But, ignoring the sillyness, having a single > VOP forces a filesystem, needed to override the single bit of behaviour, > to override all behaviours hidden from under the common VOP. Besides > the incovenience, it breaks the bypass. This is why I did not went > this route in the HEAD commit. > > Making HEAD and stable diverge for the VOP table is unmaintainable. > > At least one other change which cannot be covered by the VOP table > hacking is the struct vfsops new method. > > Traditionally (my memory goes back to 6.x branch) we did not maintained > VFS KBI stability on the branches.
Forgot to note, you completely ignored the VOP vnode locking protocol in your patch.
pgpM8G2mkkUXQ.pgp
Description: PGP signature
