From owner-freebsd-arch Thu Mar 28 15:27:55 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from green.bikeshed.org (freefall.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.21]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 673F737B416; Thu, 28 Mar 2002 15:27:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (green@localhost) by green.bikeshed.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g2SNRog05733; Thu, 28 Mar 2002 18:27:50 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from green@green.bikeshed.org) Message-Id: <200203282327.g2SNRog05733@green.bikeshed.org> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 with nmh-1.0.4 To: Kirk McKusick Cc: Terry Lambert , arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: vnode::v_op bugfix / PERFORCE change 8574 for review (fwd) In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 28 Mar 2002 14:37:21 PST." <200203282237.g2SMbLD99685@beastie.mckusick.com> From: "Brian F. Feldman" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 18:27:49 -0500 Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Kirk McKusick wrote: > I concur with your suggestion below that the new patch is a better > approach. Your ideal solution below sounds reasonable though I have > not thought it through completely. I really, really hate the idea that the machine will panic without warning if the number of vnode ops to be used becomes greather than the statically-defined limit. Isn't there some truly generic solution? -- Brian Fundakowski Feldman \'[ FreeBSD ]''''''''''\ <> green@FreeBSD.org <> bfeldman@tislabs.com \ The Power to Serve! \ Opinions expressed are my own. \,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,\ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message