From owner-freebsd-hackers Mon Jun 4 19:46:21 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from bazooka.unixfreak.org (bazooka.unixfreak.org [63.198.170.138]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C41A37B406; Mon, 4 Jun 2001 19:46:19 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dima@unixfreak.org) Received: from hornet.unixfreak.org (hornet [63.198.170.140]) by bazooka.unixfreak.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C27003E31; Mon, 4 Jun 2001 19:46:18 -0700 (PDT) To: hackers@freebsd.org Cc: phk@freebsd.org Subject: MFC'ing new md(4) functionality? Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2001 19:46:18 -0700 From: Dima Dorfman Message-Id: <20010605024618.C27003E31@bazooka.unixfreak.org> Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Is there any reason not to MFC the new md(4) functionality (i.e., swap and vnode support)? With MFS and vn(4) gone in -current, I think that the sooner users can start moving to md(4) in -stable the less cries there will be come 5.0-RELEASE. Additionally, the porting effort is not that great. mdconfig(8) and mdioctl.h aren't in -stable so those can be brought over verbatim, and the only changes to md.c itself are bio->buf stuff, and some added spl's. I've put the diff for the latter against -stable at http://www.unixfreak.org/~dima/home/mdmfc.diff. If someone wants a diff between that and -current for review let me know and I'll generate one. I'm also willing to do the actual merges if no one else has time, so the question raised in the first paragraph remains: is there any reason not to do this? Thanks in advance, Dima Dorfman dima@unixfreak.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message