From owner-freebsd-fs Sun Oct 25 07:21:47 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA19913 for freebsd-fs-outgoing; Sun, 25 Oct 1998 07:21:47 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from elixir.e.kth.se (elixir.e.kth.se [130.237.48.5]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id HAA19814 for ; Sun, 25 Oct 1998 07:21:44 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from lha@s3.kth.se) Received: from zinfandel.e.kth.se (1073744992@zinfandel.e.kth.se [130.237.48.172]) by elixir.e.kth.se (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA11273; Sun, 25 Oct 1998 16:21:09 +0100 (MET) Received: (lha@localhost) by zinfandel.e.kth.se (8.8.7/8.6.6) id QAA26745; Sun, 25 Oct 1998 16:21:09 +0100 (MET) To: Michael Hancock Cc: freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG, kom-arla@stacken.kth.se Subject: Re: deadfs in FreeBSD 3.0/current ? References: From: Love Date: 25 Oct 1998 16:21:08 +0100 In-Reply-To: Michael Hancock's message of Sun, 25 Oct 1998 23:57:09 +0900 (JST) Message-ID: Lines: 21 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.5/Emacs 20.2 Sender: owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Michael Hancock writes: > > Should we bake our own dead_vnodeops_p that is really dead vnodes ? > > I don't know. I think we dont talk about the same thing. All I want is a vnodeops that dead, they shouldn't do anything. We thought that dead_vnodeops_p was written just for this, guess we was wrong. We dont want to do any special vnode management. I consider it a bug if on of the vnodeops make the vfs sleep forever. > Anyway, that's one idea. Maybe the Coda magic isn't so bad. I don't think to. Guess that we will build our own deadvnodeops. Love To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-fs" in the body of the message