Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 10:36:39 -0400 From: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Cc: Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik@gmail.com>, current@freebsd.org, Ian Lepore <ian@freebsd.org>, Roman Divacky <rdivacky@freebsd.org>, Yuri <yuri@rawbw.com>, John-Mark Gurney <jmg@funkthat.com> Subject: Re: How to best overload the fileops ? Message-ID: <201308291036.39807.jhb@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <5217DFC0.7070708@rawbw.com> References: <521508F4.6030502@rawbw.com> <1377290165.1111.85.camel@revolution.hippie.lan> <5217DFC0.7070708@rawbw.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Friday, August 23, 2013 6:18:40 pm Yuri wrote: > On 08/23/2013 13:36, Ian Lepore wrote: > > I think the point is that devfs_ops_f provides several devfs-specific > > methods and then "inherits" the rest by referencing the standard > > vn_whatever functions. Since John recommended that you expose the > > fo_whatever methods, I think he's suggesting you build your ops table by > > providing your own close method and fill in the rest of the table with > > the now-exposed kqueue ops methods. > > So you are suggesting to just make kqueue fileops public? This was my > first suggestion, and this was rejected by Roman Divacky (who was > supposed to check it in) as very ugly. I did this through the method > kqueue_ops(), not directly though. > > So can we agree on way to be used here? Making the individual kqueue methods public is more consistent with other uses in the tree (notably devfs), so I think that is the best way. -- John Baldwin
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201308291036.39807.jhb>