Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 21:54:00 +0000 (GMT) From: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com> To: Tor.Egge@idi.ntnu.no (Tor Egge) Cc: Tor.Egge@idi.ntnu.no, roberto@keltia.freenix.fr, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: nullfs & current UPDATE! Message-ID: <199710232154.OAA08264@usr05.primenet.com> In-Reply-To: <199710232012.WAA00277@pat.idi.ntnu.no> from "Tor Egge" at Oct 23, 97 08:12:07 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > An unconditional call to vrecycle (with ap->a_vp as first argument) in > > the end of null_inactive (after VOP_UNLOCK) might be an alternate > > solution with less side effects. That should cause an immediate vrele > > of the underlying vnode where VOP_INACTIVE is called if usecount > > reaches zero. > > I'm currently using the following patch, which seems to work. [ ... ] Let me repeat my objection, this time in laymans terms: If you start filling in the funtion table, your nullfs is not very NULL, now is it? This is *not* the right approach to solving this problem; it's a kludge, and it shouldn't be perpetuated. Also: try deleting the file backing a running application with this new patch and you unconditional vrecycle() call... see what happens? Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199710232154.OAA08264>