From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Sep 4 13:37:41 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45634EB9 for ; Wed, 4 Sep 2013 13:37:41 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kaduk@mit.edu) Received: from dmz-mailsec-scanner-1.mit.edu (dmz-mailsec-scanner-1.mit.edu [18.9.25.12]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DDFFF24B6 for ; Wed, 4 Sep 2013 13:37:40 +0000 (UTC) X-AuditID: 1209190c-b7fac8e000006335-49-522736703b70 Received: from mailhub-auth-3.mit.edu ( [18.9.21.43]) by dmz-mailsec-scanner-1.mit.edu (Symantec Messaging Gateway) with SMTP id 9F.B2.25397.07637225; Wed, 4 Sep 2013 09:32:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from outgoing.mit.edu (outgoing-auth-1.mit.edu [18.9.28.11]) by mailhub-auth-3.mit.edu (8.13.8/8.9.2) with ESMTP id r84DWV1T004656; Wed, 4 Sep 2013 09:32:32 -0400 Received: from multics.mit.edu (system-low-sipb.mit.edu [18.187.2.37]) (authenticated bits=56) (User authenticated as kaduk@ATHENA.MIT.EDU) by outgoing.mit.edu (8.13.8/8.12.4) with ESMTP id r84DWT1e015181 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 4 Sep 2013 09:32:31 -0400 Received: (from kaduk@localhost) by multics.mit.edu (8.12.9.20060308) id r84DWTAC014124; Wed, 4 Sep 2013 09:32:29 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2013 09:32:29 -0400 (EDT) From: Benjamin Kaduk To: Rick Macklem Subject: Re: fixing "umount -f" for the NFS client In-Reply-To: <1247162688.16775666.1378046517881.JavaMail.root@uoguelph.ca> Message-ID: References: <1247162688.16775666.1378046517881.JavaMail.root@uoguelph.ca> User-Agent: Alpine 1.10 (GSO 962 2008-03-14) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFnrDIsWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUixCmqrVtgph5k8GehusWxxz/ZLB4uu8bk wOQx49N8Fo/fm/cyBTBFcdmkpOZklqUW6dslcGWcnK1esIWrouHqVsYGxmkcXYycHBICJhIv m14zQthiEhfurWfrYuTiEBLYxyjx5MY+ZghnA6PE+1sLGCGcg0wSL271sYO0CAnUS/R3nmYF sVkEtCSmrIGIswmoSMx8s5ENxBYRUJfYvLqfGcRmBrIbmqaA1QgLGEnMX9EMtppTwEvi26X/ YHFeAUeJ2StuQc33lJh07whYjaiAjsTq/VNYIGoEJU7OfMICMdNS4tyf62wTGAVnIUnNQpJa wMi0ilE2JbdKNzcxM6c4NVm3ODkxLy+1SNdQLzezRC81pXQTIzhQJXl2ML45qHSIUYCDUYmH t9FYPUiINbGsuDL3EKMkB5OSKO95I6AQX1J+SmVGYnFGfFFpTmrxIUYJDmYlEd6lIkA53pTE yqrUonyYlDQHi5I479OnZwOFBNITS1KzU1MLUotgsjIcHEoSvHamQI2CRanpqRVpmTklCGkm Dk6Q4TxAwwNBaniLCxJzizPTIfKnGBWlxHmdQRICIImM0jy4XlgiecUoDvSKMEQ7DzAJwXW/ AhrMBDQ47bMqyOCSRISUVAPjLJeJ+7TM05jW6F9cmcDWdOejTr//3psbc8p+GbPH/2s/96Fn L8ca2Uf/yoV/Hkp54Ds3ZGuNWo2H4aXugsN35ZLlMyfLN151bRK7Zfy940qFpXDiyZ0dL3fs 99zm1Gw5yaJ8jn3e0qzsSVfFbGrs5m1wsoiSKuSae6KeJyDmrNyCyBUv77spsRRnJBpqMRcV JwIAhkFhzP8CAAA= Cc: freebsd-fs X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2013 13:37:41 -0000 On Sun, 1 Sep 2013, Rick Macklem wrote: > Benjamin Kaduk wrote: >> On Fri, 30 Aug 2013, Rick Macklem wrote: >> >>> Kostik wrote: >>>> On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 07:43:34PM -0400, Rick Macklem wrote: >>>>>>> I assume I would also need to bump __FreeBSD_version (and maybe >>>>>>> VFS_VERSION?). >>>>>> I think you could avoid it. >>>>>> >>>>> Do you mean I don't need to bump __FreeBSD_version or VFS_VERSION >>>>> or both? >>>> I do not see much sense in bumping either of them. >>>> You might want to bump __FreeBSD_version when merging to stable. >> >> Please do bump __FreeBSD_version when merging to stable. I will not >> make >> much noise about -current at the moment, as I'm behind on tracking >> it. >> > Actually, I'm "on the fence" as to whether or not this one should be > MFC'd, due to the VFS ABI breakage. > > Since you (well, actually OpenAFS;-) are the main guy affected by VFS > ABI breakage these days, maybe you'd like to comment on this? > > Also, if anyone else has an opinion w.r.t. MFC'ng a patch that adds > a VFS op and, therefore, breaks the VFS ABI, please feel free to comment. Oops, this mail got lost. I think there are spare vfsops fields, so the MFC can be done in an ABI-compatible way. The new routine is for optional functionality, so it seems fine. -Ben