From owner-freebsd-fs Tue May 26 04:00:35 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id EAA06010 for freebsd-fs-outgoing; Tue, 26 May 1998 04:00:35 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from ns1.yes.no (ns1.yes.no [195.119.24.10]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id EAA05605 for ; Tue, 26 May 1998 04:00:27 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from eivind@bitbox.follo.net) Received: from bitbox.follo.net (bitbox.follo.net [195.204.143.218]) by ns1.yes.no (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA24166; Tue, 26 May 1998 11:00:10 GMT Received: (from eivind@localhost) by bitbox.follo.net (8.8.8/8.8.6) id MAA13772; Tue, 26 May 1998 12:59:55 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <19980526125955.35385@follo.net> Date: Tue, 26 May 1998 12:59:55 +0200 From: Eivind Eklund To: Michael Hancock Cc: "John S. Dyson" , tlambert@primenet.com, fs@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: May 17th UP machine 'panic' References: <19980526035319.63753@follo.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.89.1i In-Reply-To: ; from Michael Hancock on Tue, May 26, 1998 at 12:05:57PM +0900 Sender: owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Tue, May 26, 1998 at 12:05:57PM +0900, Michael Hancock wrote: > You should review and test as much as you can on your own and demonstrate > some stability before you release it for broader testing. I'm using the Linus definitions for stability of the development kernel (this is an actual quote): "If it compiles, it is good - if it boots, is it perfect" ;-) I'll give it a shakeout - presently it is very, very rough. It is only compiled, not run - and I still haven't done much to make sure that vput() has proc available from a higher level (even though that often is easy to arrange). > > Oh, and can somebody tell me if cnp->cn_proc is generally usable as a > > 'relevant process pointer', or if I should keep it to areas where it > > is already used (as I did in the rough patch)? > > You will often see ... > > struct proc *p = cnp->cn_proc; > > ... if the argument is used frequently in the function. It's usually > relevant, but being consistent is probably fine. I'm thinking more of whether the value of cnp->cn_proc will be the correct process to pass down in all cases. As it is, I haven't used it except where it already was used in the same function. > I won't have time to review it for a while. I need to finish vop_rename, > which is a doozy, and things have gotten busy at work. That's OK. I don't have any particular need for this - I'm doing it because everybody seemed to agree that it was the way to go, but nobody else seemed to want to be bothered with doing it. Eivind. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-fs" in the body of the message