Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2013 09:32:29 -0400 (EDT) From: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@MIT.EDU> To: Rick Macklem <rmacklem@uoguelph.ca> Cc: freebsd-fs <freebsd-fs@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: fixing "umount -f" for the NFS client Message-ID: <alpine.GSO.1.10.1309040931350.16692@multics.mit.edu> In-Reply-To: <1247162688.16775666.1378046517881.JavaMail.root@uoguelph.ca> References: <1247162688.16775666.1378046517881.JavaMail.root@uoguelph.ca>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?alpine.GSO.1.10.1309040931350.16692>