Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 10:39:42 +0100 From: Mark Santcroos <marks@ripe.net> To: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: nswap Message-ID: <20030121093942.GD620@laptop.6bone.nl> In-Reply-To: <20030121093301.GB6497@HAL9000.homeunix.com> References: <20030117000917.GA7277@laptop.6bone.nl> <20030117232729.GA5908@HAL9000.homeunix.com> <20030120145205.GA4911@laptop.6bone.nl> <20030120190936.GA3192@HAL9000.homeunix.com> <20030121074128.GA880@laptop.6bone.nl> <20030121093301.GB6497@HAL9000.homeunix.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Jan 21, 2003 at 01:33:01AM -0800, David Schultz wrote:
> Thus spake Mark Santcroos <marks@ripe.net>:
> > Yes, that is also what I meant. We now have a swapoff() system call that
> > does all the work itself.
> >
> > My idea was to split that up:
> >
> > /* turn of swap device */
> > static int swapoff_one(struct swdevt *sp)
> > {
> > /* Do all things that we don't want to know about outside this function
> > */
> > }
> >
> > /* turn off all swap devices */
> > int swapoff_all()
> > {
> > int index;
> > struct swdevt *sp;
> >
> > for (sp = swdevt, index = 0; index < nswdev; index++, sp++)
> > swapoff_one(sp);
> > }
> >
> > So the swapoff() system call would call swapoff_one() and my code in
> > kern/kern_swsuspend.c would call swapoff_all().
>
> See swapoff(8), in particular the -a flag.
I'm aware of that, but imho it doesn't suite my purpose. Are you strongly
against having such code inside the kernel?
Mark
--
Mark Santcroos RIPE Network Coordination Centre
http://www.ripe.net/home/mark/ New Projects Group/TTM
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?20030121093942.GD620>