Re: kern/15421 (vnode VOP()erations handle SAVESTART inconsistently)

[Chris Jepeway <jepeway%blasted-heath.com@localhost>]

The following reply was made to PR kern/15421; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Chris Jepeway <jepeway%blasted-heath.com@localhost>
To: gnats-bugs%NetBSD.org@localhost
Cc: pooka%NetBSD.org@localhost,
 gnats-admin%netbsd.org@localhost,
 kern-bug-people%netbsd.org@localhost,
 netbsd-bugs%netbsd.org@localhost
Subject: Re: kern/15421 (vnode VOP()erations handle SAVESTART inconsistently)
Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2008 21:18:21 -0500

 > State-Changed-From-To: open->feedback
 > State-Changed-By: pooka%narn.netbsd.org@localhost
 > State-Changed-When: Sat, 19 Jan 2008 22:17:32 +0200
 > State-Changed-Why:
 > While the PR is in principle correct, SAVESTART is unlikely to get
 > any divine interventions with the current lookup labyrinth and I'd
 > like to close this PR.  Do you want to use SAVESTART for something
 > besides rename?
 As I recall (mostly from what I wrote in the PR),
 I was trying to get a layered f/s working that
 relied on SAVESTART.  However, since the UFS VOPs
 don't use it consistently, and other f/s's don't
 follow UFS's inconsistencies, I gave up.
 
 Now, *why* that layered f/s cared about SAVESTART,
 I just don't remember.  I mentioned ufs_rename only
 to point out some gnarly use of SAVESTART that I
 couldn't follow.
 
 As for closing the PR because you want to,
 well, I'm not doing kernel work anymore, so I
 no longer have a practical use for a fix to this bug.
 
 So...however you like, so far as I'm concerned.
 
 Thanks, though, for following up!
 
 Chris.