Date: Tue, 28 Dec 1999 11:57:43 +0800 From: Peter Wemm <peter@netplex.com.au> To: dg@root.com, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.freebsd.dk>, Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com>, freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Proposed patch to fix VN device (again) Message-ID: <19991228035743.237CC1CA0@overcee.netplex.com.au> In-Reply-To: Message from Peter Wemm <peter@netplex.com.au> of "Tue, 28 Dec 1999 11:24:33 %2B0800." <19991228032433.70DE41CA0@overcee.netplex.com.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Peter Wemm wrote:
> David Greenman wrote:
> > I've heard from both of you that you think the other is wrong. This isn'
t
> > very helpful, however, in finding the correct solution. What I'd like to he
ar
> > from both of you is the reasons why swap is better as a device, or not. The
re
> > seems to be some unstated architectural philosophy that needs to be stated
> > before any informed decision can be made about what is the right direction
to
> > go in.
>
> The problem is that swapdev_vp needs to handle VOP_STRATEGY(), and swapdev_vp
> is incorrectly being pointed at spec_vnops. Here is a proposed (UNTESTED!)
> clean fix:
This is missing a vop_default entry, so it will panic. But as a proof of
concept it still stands.
Cheers,
-Peter
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19991228035743.237CC1CA0>