YAMAMOTO Takashi wrote:

> do you mean that raidframe doesn't have to involve VOP_OPEN or d_open?

maybe. I didn't really look into it yet.

> 
>> or the interface can simply be changed to take a
>> different parameter.
> 
> which interface are you talking about?

sysdisk(9). it doesn't have to take vp.

> i prefer another argument, but i don't think it is very important.

if it can be passed in mode bits, and we find a way to resolve the issue
for raidframe, we might be able to use it, but that'd probably mean
adding another vnode flag etc.

-e.