From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Dec 18 16:25:24 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E815A16A407 for ; Mon, 18 Dec 2006 16:25:24 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from cokane@mail.cokane.org) Received: from ms-smtp-05.texas.rr.com (ms-smtp-05.texas.rr.com [24.93.47.44]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3774B43CA4 for ; Mon, 18 Dec 2006 16:25:24 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from cokane@mail.cokane.org) Received: from ramen.cokane.org (rrcs-24-153-184-158.sw.biz.rr.com [24.153.184.158]) by ms-smtp-05.texas.rr.com (8.13.6/8.13.6) with SMTP id kBIFdDu8023390 for ; Mon, 18 Dec 2006 09:39:14 -0600 (CST) Received: (qmail 6918 invoked by uid 1001); 18 Dec 2006 15:39:06 -0000 Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2006 15:39:06 +0000 From: Coleman Kane To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Message-ID: <20061218153906.GA6910@ramen.coleyandcheryl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-Virus-Scanned: Symantec AntiVirus Scan Engine Subject: UFS_GJOURNAL and ufs.ko X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2006 16:25:25 -0000 Hello, I have noticed (since adding UFS journal support) that the UFS_GJOURNAL option hasn't been added to the ufs.ko kernel module. I've been using this (out of an effort to test as much as possible as KLDs) and every time I upgrade my kernel I must manually add -DUFS_GJOURNAL to the CFLAGS line in its Makefile. Is there any specific reason why this can't be committed? So far, my experience with GJOURNAL has been great testing it both with journal+fs on the same device as well as on two seperate devices. It looks like an oversight to me, but I don't want to jump the gun on it if there is some reasonable argument to keep it out "by default". -- Coleman Kane