From owner-freebsd-fs  Thu Aug 26  9:44:42 1999
Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org
Received: from arc.hq.cti.ru (arc.hq.cti.ru [195.34.40.3])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id A973614DAE; Thu, 26 Aug 1999 09:44:36 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from tejblum@arc.hq.cti.ru)
Received: from arc.hq.cti.ru (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by arc.hq.cti.ru (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA07357;
	Thu, 26 Aug 1999 20:42:17 +0400 (MSD)
	(envelope-from tejblum@arc.hq.cti.ru)
Message-Id: <199908261642.UAA07357@arc.hq.cti.ru>
X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0zeta 7/24/97
To: Alfred Perlstein <bright@wintelcom.net>
Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, fs@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: HEADS UP Reviewers. VFS changes to be committed. 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 26 Aug 1999 08:28:29 -0000."
             <Pine.BSF.4.05.9908260220590.6392-100000@fw.wintelcom.net> 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 20:42:16 +0400
From: Dmitrij Tejblum <tejblum@arc.hq.cti.ru>
Sender: owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org

Just a few comments...

> 2) The casting of VFS ops to eopnotsupp() has been removed and
>      vfs_nop*() functions have been put into kern/vfs_default.c
> 
>    This makes it more clear that certain VFS-ops are giving default
>    behavior, either returning automatic success or returning EOPNOTSUPP.

I like the idea. (However, I think that the functions returning failure 
should not be called NOPs.)

> Why does VFS_CHECKEXP take a vnode and not a mount point? 
> Hopefully in the future a filesystem will be able to more 
> restrictively export its files, this will help facilitate that.

IMO, if it take a vnode, it should be VOP_CHECKEXP, not VFS_CHECKEXP.

Dima




To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-fs" in the body of the message