On Tue, Dec 27, 2005 at 02:49:24PM -0800, Chuck Silvers wrote: > On Sat, Dec 24, 2005 at 03:28:06PM +0900, YAMAMOTO Takashi wrote: > > > One thing I noted in this change is that vget() will now call > > > VOP_INACTIVE() on vnodes that were never activated. Will this cause > > > issues > > > with other file systems? > > > > what kind of issues? > > afaik, vn_lock fails only when the vnode is being reclaimed. > > in that case, calling vrele doesn't hurt. > > I'm also suspicious of this change. this change doesn't seem related > to the purpose given in the check-in comment, is it? if you really want > to reduce the amount of duplicate code, why not just split it into > multiple functions? A separate checkin might have been good. However at this point, a "cvs admin -m" will probably be enough to fix things up. I agree we should note this change, but I don't think it's so bad to include it. > also, do we really another flag that means the same thing as VXLOCK? > why not just use VXLOCK? this would mean rearranging vgonel(), vclean(), > etc, a bit, but the result would be much nicer. The difference I see is who gets to set it. VXLOCK is set by vfs_subr.c; it is owned by the FS-independent code. VFREEING, however, is set by the FS-specific code. The only thing I find missing is that there isn't any code which USES the new flag. Did a checkin get missed? Take care, Bill
Attachment:
pgpnYEvUf3NuY.pgp
Description: PGP signature