From owner-freebsd-hackers Thu May 13 19:31: 2 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from sol (cs1-gw.cs.binghamton.edu [128.226.171.72]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 83A92152C1 for ; Thu, 13 May 1999 19:29:52 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from zzhang@cs.binghamton.edu) Received: from localhost (zzhang@localhost) by sol (SMI-8.6/8.6.9) with SMTP id WAA15751 for ; Thu, 13 May 1999 22:18:52 -0400 Date: Thu, 13 May 1999 22:18:51 -0400 (EDT) From: Zhihui Zhang To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: VOP_LEASE(...) or (void)VOP_LEASE(...)? Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG VOP_LEASE(...) always returns 0 so there is no actual need to check its return value. But still it has a return value. So should we use (void)VOP_LEASE(...) instead of just VOP_LEASE(...)? BTW, I guess that the practice of modifying default_vnodeop_p[VOFFSET(vop_lease)] in nfs_init() is a hack. Why do not we use { &vop_lease_desc, (vop_t *) nqnfs_vop_lease_check }, instead of { &vop_lease_desc, (vop_t *) vop_null }, in nfsv2_vnodeop_entries[] in file nfs_vnops.c? Thanks for any help. -------------------------------------------------- Zhihui Zhang. Please visit http://www.freebsd.org -------------------------------------------------- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message