From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG  Sat Feb  3 20:57:57 2007
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG>
X-Original-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org
Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE0E416A400
	for <freebsd-fs@freebsd.org>; Sat,  3 Feb 2007 20:57:57 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from mckusick@mckusick.com)
Received: from chez.mckusick.com (dsl081-247-049.sfo1.dsl.speakeasy.net
	[64.81.247.49])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CA6E13C4B6
	for <freebsd-fs@freebsd.org>; Sat,  3 Feb 2007 20:57:57 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from mckusick@mckusick.com)
Received: from chez.mckusick.com (localhost.mckusick.com [127.0.0.1])
	by chez.mckusick.com (8.13.8/8.13.6) with ESMTP id l13KfdEG020521;
	Sat, 3 Feb 2007 12:42:02 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from mckusick@chez.mckusick.com)
Message-Id: <200702032042.l13KfdEG020521@chez.mckusick.com>
To: Pawel Jakub Dawidek <pjd@freebsd.org>
Date: Sat, 03 Feb 2007 12:41:39 -0800
From: Kirk McKusick <mckusick@mckusick.com>
Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Call for tester! vptofh change. 
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, 03 Feb 2007 20:57:57 -0000

I fully approve of your changing VFS_VPTOFH to being a VOP operation.
I also agree that VFS_VPTOFH should go away. Though extra work as
you note, it is important `infrastructure work' to keep the interface
clean.

I wanted to make VPTOFH a VOP operation when I first added the VFS
interface to BSD, but was pursuaded not to do so because Sun had
done it as a VFS operation.  The idea was to make our VFS interface
as compatible to Sun's as possible because many of the BSD vendors
replaced our NFS implementation with Sun's and wanted to minimize
the work.

	Kirk McKusick