From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Sep 1 14:42:05 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2318A375 for ; Sun, 1 Sep 2013 14:42:05 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rmacklem@uoguelph.ca) Received: from esa-jnhn.mail.uoguelph.ca (esa-jnhn.mail.uoguelph.ca [131.104.91.44]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4AA32FE8 for ; Sun, 1 Sep 2013 14:42:04 +0000 (UTC) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AqAEAFNRI1KDaFve/2dsb2JhbABaDoN/gye9RYE0dIIkAQEEASNWBRYYAgINGQJZBogPBqd2kWqBKY4iNAeCaYE0A6lbgmFbIIFu X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.89,1001,1367985600"; d="scan'208";a="48843693" Received: from muskoka.cs.uoguelph.ca (HELO zcs3.mail.uoguelph.ca) ([131.104.91.222]) by esa-jnhn.mail.uoguelph.ca with ESMTP; 01 Sep 2013 10:41:57 -0400 Received: from zcs3.mail.uoguelph.ca (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by zcs3.mail.uoguelph.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA67DB3F15; Sun, 1 Sep 2013 10:41:57 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 1 Sep 2013 10:41:57 -0400 (EDT) From: Rick Macklem To: Benjamin Kaduk Message-ID: <1247162688.16775666.1378046517881.JavaMail.root@uoguelph.ca> In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: fixing "umount -f" for the NFS client MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [172.17.91.203] X-Mailer: Zimbra 7.2.1_GA_2790 (ZimbraWebClient - FF3.0 (Win)/7.2.1_GA_2790) Cc: freebsd-fs X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 01 Sep 2013 14:42:05 -0000 Benjamin Kaduk wrote: > On Fri, 30 Aug 2013, Rick Macklem wrote: > > > Kostik wrote: > >> On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 07:43:34PM -0400, Rick Macklem wrote: > >>>>> I assume I would also need to bump __FreeBSD_version (and maybe > >>>>> VFS_VERSION?). > >>>> I think you could avoid it. > >>>> > >>> Do you mean I don't need to bump __FreeBSD_version or VFS_VERSION > >>> or both? > >> I do not see much sense in bumping either of them. > >> You might want to bump __FreeBSD_version when merging to stable. > > Please do bump __FreeBSD_version when merging to stable. I will not > make > much noise about -current at the moment, as I'm behind on tracking > it. > Actually, I'm "on the fence" as to whether or not this one should be MFC'd, due to the VFS ABI breakage. Since you (well, actually OpenAFS;-) are the main guy affected by VFS ABI breakage these days, maybe you'd like to comment on this? Also, if anyone else has an opinion w.r.t. MFC'ng a patch that adds a VFS op and, therefore, breaks the VFS ABI, please feel free to comment. Thanks, rick ps: And, yes, I will bump __FreeBSD_version of I end up doing the MFC. > Thanks, > > Ben >