From owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Nov 13 10:39:19 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cvs-all@freebsd.org Received: from green.bikeshed.org (freefall.freebsd.org [216.136.204.21]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E22116A4CE; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 10:39:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from green.bikeshed.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by green.bikeshed.org (8.12.10/8.12.9) with ESMTP id hADIdIcR012656; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 13:39:18 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from green@green.bikeshed.org) Received: from localhost (green@localhost)hADIdHZY012652; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 13:39:17 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200311131839.hADIdHZY012652@green.bikeshed.org> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.6.3 04/04/2003 with nmh-1.0.4 To: "Poul-Henning Kamp" In-Reply-To: Message from "Poul-Henning Kamp" of "Wed, 12 Nov 2003 23:52:23 +0100." <688.1068677543@critter.freebsd.dk> From: "Brian F. Feldman" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 13:39:17 -0500 Sender: green@green.bikeshed.org cc: "Brian F. Feldman" cc: src-committers@FreeBSD.org cc: cvs-src@FreeBSD.org cc: Scott Long cc: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org cc: Kirk McKusick Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/bin/df df.c src/sys/kern syscalls.master vfs_bio.c vfs_cluster.c vfs_syscalls.c src/sys/sys mount.h src/sys/ufs/ffs ffs_vfsops.c X-BeenThere: cvs-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: CVS commit messages for the entire tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 18:39:19 -0000 "Poul-Henning Kamp" wrote: > In message <200311122219.hACMJwaG007327@beastie.mckusick.com>, Kirk McKusick wr > ites: > > From: "Brian F. Feldman" > > Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 14:16:07 -0500 > > Sender: owner-src-committers@FreeBSD.org > > X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > > > > Does this mean someone may be free to write wrappers that block > > ENOSYS, execute statfs calls, and fall back to ostatfs calls > > (translating 64->32 bit values as best as possible, like the kernel > > does) returning the new statfs? Obviously, this would just be to > > add a safety window for the transition period and to be removed > > before a -RELEASE. > > > > -- > > Brian Fundakowski Feldman \'[ FreeBSD ]''''''''''\ > > <> green@FreeBSD.org \ The Power to Serve! \ > > Opinions expressed are my own. \,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,\ > > > >The above would certainly be possible. If this were a more heavily > >used interface (like say stat), it would be a useful exercise. But > >I do not feel it is really necessary for statfs. However, I am not > >going to object if someone wants to go through the exercise of > >implementing your suggestion. > > Uhm, as far as I recall, calling an undefined system call gives you > a signal you need to handle, before you will ever see the ENOSYS. See, by "block ENOSYS", I sorta meant to say "block SIGSYS"... Still this seems like it would be a useful enough upgrade path for -current users if implemented soon. -- Brian Fundakowski Feldman \'[ FreeBSD ]''''''''''\ <> green@FreeBSD.org \ The Power to Serve! \ Opinions expressed are my own. \,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,\