From owner-freebsd-current Sat Aug 29 06:42:26 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA27375 for freebsd-current-outgoing; Sat, 29 Aug 1998 06:42:26 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from lor.watermarkgroup.com (lor.watermarkgroup.com [207.202.73.33]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id GAA27367 for ; Sat, 29 Aug 1998 06:42:24 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from luoqi@watermarkgroup.com) Received: (from luoqi@localhost) by lor.watermarkgroup.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA01898; Sat, 29 Aug 1998 09:39:30 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from luoqi) Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1998 09:39:30 -0400 (EDT) From: Luoqi Chen Message-Id: <199808291339.JAA01898@lor.watermarkgroup.com> To: current@FreeBSD.ORG, julian@whistle.com Subject: Re: FS gurus please.. Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > Why does MFS unconditionally call spec_fsync() on all vnodes? One presumes > that since it's a memory filesysytem, fsync should do nothing.. I'm also > curious why it doesn't even check that it's a vnode for a special device. > What do we gain by calling spec_fsync on a normal file in an MFS? > The so called mfs_vnodeop is actually a misnomer: it is used only for the underlying block device vnode, which is not even one of mfs' vnodes. All mfs' vnodes use regular ufs vnode ops. -lq To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message