From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG  Sat Dec  1 22:07:59 2007
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC3F316A46E
	for <freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.org>; Sat,  1 Dec 2007 22:07:59 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from truckman@FreeBSD.org)
Received: from gw.catspoiler.org (adsl-75-1-14-242.dsl.scrm01.sbcglobal.net
	[75.1.14.242]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 806AD13C46A
	for <freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.org>; Sat,  1 Dec 2007 22:07:59 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from truckman@FreeBSD.org)
Received: from FreeBSD.org (mousie.catspoiler.org [192.168.101.2])
	by gw.catspoiler.org (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id lB1M7oNg015468;
	Sat, 1 Dec 2007 14:07:54 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from truckman@FreeBSD.org)
Message-Id: <200712012207.lB1M7oNg015468@gw.catspoiler.org>
Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2007 14:07:50 -0800 (PST)
From: Don Lewis <truckman@FreeBSD.org>
To: brde@optusnet.com.au
In-Reply-To: <20071201215706.B12006@besplex.bde.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.org
Subject: Re: File remove problem
X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Filesystems <freebsd-fs.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-fs>,
	<mailto:freebsd-fs-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-fs>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-fs@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-fs-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-fs>,
	<mailto:freebsd-fs-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 01 Dec 2007 22:07:59 -0000

On  1 Dec, Bruce Evans wrote:
> On Sat, 1 Dec 2007, Kostik Belousov wrote:

>> +static int
>> +ffs_isronly(struct ufsmount *ump)
>> +{
>> +	struct fs *fs = ump->um_fs;
>> +
>> +	return (fs->fs_ronly);
>> +}
>> +
> 
> Could be ump->um_fs->fs_ronly.

That's the change that I would have made.  A #include for <ufs/ffs/fs.h>
would have to be added, which some might argue would be a layering
violation.  I'd prefer to avoid the extra indirection.


> Anyway, doesn't the vn_start_write() in ffs_mount() wait for all writers
> like the rm process to complete?

vn_start_write() is used to block writes during certain stages of
snapshot creation.