From owner-freebsd-hackers  Mon Jan  8 13:18:06 1996
Return-Path: owner-hackers
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id NAA08716
          for hackers-outgoing; Mon, 8 Jan 1996 13:18:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from Root.COM (implode.Root.COM [198.145.90.17])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id NAA08698
          for <hackers@freebsd.org>; Mon, 8 Jan 1996 13:17:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from corbin.Root.COM (corbin [198.145.90.50]) by Root.COM (8.6.12/8.6.5) with ESMTP id NAA01359; Mon, 8 Jan 1996 13:17:50 -0800
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by corbin.Root.COM (8.7.3/8.6.5) with SMTP id NAA01757; Mon, 8 Jan 1996 13:17:52 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <199601082117.NAA01757@corbin.Root.COM>
To: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org>
cc: phk@critter.tfs.com (Poul-Henning Kamp), msmith@atrad.adelaide.edu.au,
        hackers@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Add new slice to running system, comments? 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 08 Jan 96 13:10:33 MST."
             <199601082010.NAA10288@phaeton.artisoft.com> 
From: David Greenman <davidg@Root.COM>
Reply-To: davidg@Root.COM
Date: Mon, 08 Jan 1996 13:17:46 -0800
Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org
Precedence: bulk

>> > That still doesn't achieve what I want, which is for 'native' FreeBSD
>> > disk slices to be able to exist _inside_ a FAT filesystem.
>> 
>> Yes in fact it would.
>> 
>> It is the only way to avoid the terrible problems you get into if for
>> instance I 
>> 	rm -f /dos/C/WINDOWS.SWP
>> while you swap on it.
>
>Shouldn't this (well, loose meaning of "should" in this case, since I don't
>agree with half of the VEXEC crap) result in an EBUSY?

   No. VEXEC only means that you can't write to it. Doing an rm just marks the
file for delete since it is still open by something else. This is the desired
behavior.

-DG

David Greenman
Core Team/Principal Architect, The FreeBSD Project