Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2000 14:19:57 -0400 (EDT) From: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.ORG> To: Marius Bendiksen <mbendiks@eunet.no> Cc: Adrian Chadd <adrian@FreeBSD.ORG>, Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com>, Alfred Perlstein <bright@wintelcom.net>, freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Alterations to vops Message-ID: <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1000707141702.67890C-100000@fledge.watson.org> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.05.10007071936010.74828-100000@login-1.eunet.no>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 7 Jul 2000, Marius Bendiksen wrote:
> Like I stated in the original post; currently, certain operations scan
> through a number of blocks in kernel space. I would like to be able to
> add an off_t to the argument list of said operations, set to VNOVAL by
> the caller, then initialized by the VOP, and incremented by it on each
> pass. The VOP will return a new error code (ERETRY) when the pass only
> partially completed, and the library will iterate.
VNOVAL is evil. This is not an opinion about the general point your
making, just a comment on the poor design of vop_{get,set}attr. Right
now, collisions between the usable data space of attributes and the VNOVAL
constant can cause serious pain. For example, chowning a file to the
integer value of VNOVAL :-).
Ideally, in my mind, calls to vop_setattr() would be replaced with calls
to vop_setextattr, allowing us to get rid of the VNOVAL use. That said,
I'm not sure I expect that to happen, and there would be namespace issues
if it did.
robert@fledge.watson.org http://www.watson.org/~robert/
PGP key fingerprint: AF B5 5F FF A6 4A 79 37 ED 5F 55 E9 58 04 6A B1
TIS Labs at Network Associates, Safeport Network Services
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.NEB.3.96L.1000707141702.67890C-100000>