Date: Thu, 13 May 1999 21:34:31 -0700 (PDT) From: Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com> To: Zhihui Zhang <zzhang@cs.binghamton.edu> Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: VOP_LEASE(...) or (void)VOP_LEASE(...)? Message-ID: <199905140434.VAA97588@apollo.backplane.com> References: <Pine.GSO.3.96.990513221012.15708A-100000@sol.cs.binghamton.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
:VOP_LEASE(...) always returns 0 so there is no actual need to check its
:return value. But still it has a return value. So should we use
:(void)VOP_LEASE(...) instead of just VOP_LEASE(...)?
I think we should leave it an int. It may not always return 0 in the
future.
:BTW, I guess that the practice of modifying
:default_vnodeop_p[VOFFSET(vop_lease)] in nfs_init() is a hack. Why do not
:we use
:
: { &vop_lease_desc, (vop_t *) nqnfs_vop_lease_check },
:
:instead of
:
: { &vop_lease_desc, (vop_t *) vop_null },
:
:in nfsv2_vnodeop_entries[] in file nfs_vnops.c?
:
:Thanks for any help.
I think the hack is in there in order to optimize code exclusion when
NFS_NOSERVER is set.
This is one of those "if it aint broke, don't fix it" situations. I
know it's ugly, but the only things we should be patching into the NFS
code right now are bug fixes.
-Matt
Matthew Dillon
<dillon@backplane.com>
:--------------------------------------------------
:Zhihui Zhang. Please visit http://www.freebsd.org
:--------------------------------------------------
:
:
:
:To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
:with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
:
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199905140434.VAA97588>