From owner-freebsd-current Mon Dec 27 19:57:57 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from overcee.netplex.com.au (overcee.netplex.com.au [202.12.86.7]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4092F14A1A for ; Mon, 27 Dec 1999 19:57:54 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from peter@netplex.com.au) Received: from netplex.com.au (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by overcee.netplex.com.au (Postfix) with ESMTP id 237CC1CA0; Tue, 28 Dec 1999 11:57:43 +0800 (WST) (envelope-from peter@netplex.com.au) X-Mailer: exmh version 2.1.1 10/15/1999 To: dg@root.com, Poul-Henning Kamp , Matthew Dillon , freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Proposed patch to fix VN device (again) In-Reply-To: Message from Peter Wemm of "Tue, 28 Dec 1999 11:24:33 +0800." <19991228032433.70DE41CA0@overcee.netplex.com.au> Date: Tue, 28 Dec 1999 11:57:43 +0800 From: Peter Wemm Message-Id: <19991228035743.237CC1CA0@overcee.netplex.com.au> Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG 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