From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Sep 4 20:56:06 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 7D9EAEDD for ; Wed, 4 Sep 2013 20:56:06 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rmacklem@uoguelph.ca) Received: from esa-annu.net.uoguelph.ca (esa-annu.mail.uoguelph.ca [131.104.91.36]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43E3D24C5 for ; Wed, 4 Sep 2013 20:56:05 +0000 (UTC) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvgEAHudJ1KDaFve/2dsb2JhbABaDoN/gyi9D4ENgT50giQBAQUjVhsYAgINGQJZBogVqDSSBYEpjH6BBTQHgmmBNAORVZgGgmFbIIE1OQ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.89,1023,1367985600"; d="scan'208";a="48652845" Received: from muskoka.cs.uoguelph.ca (HELO zcs3.mail.uoguelph.ca) ([131.104.91.222]) by esa-annu.net.uoguelph.ca with ESMTP; 04 Sep 2013 16:55:59 -0400 Received: from zcs3.mail.uoguelph.ca (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by zcs3.mail.uoguelph.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46949B4064; Wed, 4 Sep 2013 16:55:59 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2013 16:55:59 -0400 (EDT) From: Rick Macklem To: Benjamin Kaduk Message-ID: <1345367028.18318718.1378328159276.JavaMail.root@uoguelph.ca> In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: fixing "umount -f" for the NFS client MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [172.17.91.202] X-Mailer: Zimbra 7.2.1_GA_2790 (ZimbraWebClient - FF3.0 (Win)/7.2.1_GA_2790) 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 20:56:06 -0000 Benjamin Kaduk wrote: > 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. > There are spares vfs ops in 10/current, but not in stable/9. An MFC will result in a VFS ABI change. (Since 10.0 hasn't been released yet, I didn't use one of the recently added spares.) rick > -Ben >