From owner-cvs-src@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Aug 18 17:00:38 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cvs-src@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 593EA37B404 for ; Mon, 18 Aug 2003 17:00:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rootlabs.com (root.org [67.118.192.226]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id AF9B843FA3 for ; Mon, 18 Aug 2003 17:00:36 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nate@rootlabs.com) Received: (qmail 4887 invoked by uid 1000); 19 Aug 2003 00:00:38 -0000 Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 17:00:38 -0700 (PDT) From: Nate Lawson To: Juli Mallett In-Reply-To: <20030815212038.A22954@FreeBSD.org> Message-ID: <20030818165906.X4313@root.org> References: <20030814184108.AE45F37B49A@hub.freebsd.org> <20030814125213.X93797@root.org> <20030814220900.D744@leelou.in.tern> <20030814132424.N93994@root.org> <20030814223052.O744@leelou.in.tern> <20030814133614.M93994@root.org> <20030815212038.A22954@FreeBSD.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII cc: cvs-src@FreeBSD.org cc: src-committers@FreeBSD.org cc: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sbin/growfs debug.c debug.h X-BeenThere: cvs-src@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: CVS commit messages for the src tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 00:00:39 -0000 On Fri, 15 Aug 2003, Juli Mallett wrote: > * Nate Lawson [ Date: 2003-08-14 ] > [ w.r.t. Re: cvs commit: src/sbin/growfs debug.c debug.h ] > > > > The actual problem I am addressing is larger than growfs. Basically, any > > > > time a sblock change is made, every UFS utility in the system has to be > > > > updated and growfs has not kept up. So I have extracted sblock updating > > > > into a routine that is shared between the kernel and userland so that it's > > > > only in one place in the code. But more work is needed before it can be > > > > committed. > > > > > > Well, I'd say that libufs is already a right step in this direction. > > > > It also needs work but is outside the scope of what I'm doing. > > Can you tell me what? I'm sure someone is interested in doing it, and > depending on what it is, that may be me. I have some things in mind > regarding how "elegant" it is to try to move to more robust interfaces, > but that's beside the point. If there are deficiencies you hit, let > me know. I'm not worrying about accessors or anything. All I'm doing is a shared user/kernel function which updates sblocks version 0...n-1 to version n. Currently libufs is not linked with the kernel. -Nate