Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 10:47:58 -0500 (EST) From: Garrett Wollman <wollman@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> To: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> Cc: cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/isofs/cd9660 cd9660_vfsops.c Message-ID: <200101241547.KAA61320@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0101242229170.44683-100000@besplex.bde.org> References: <20010123163418.N26076@fw.wintelcom.net> <Pine.BSF.4.21.0101242229170.44683-100000@besplex.bde.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
<<On Wed, 24 Jan 2001 23:10:51 +1100 (EST), Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> said: > Unfortunately, most vfs and vnop interfaces including VFS_MOUNT() make > it unclear that p == curproc by pretending to support arbitrary p's. I believe the intent was (and Kirk can correct me if I'm wrong) that curproc should one day be eliminated, and the `p' argument to many kernel functions would be the only MI way to access the process structure of the current process. (Analogous to the way in which post-4.3 BSD removed `u' as an alias for the current process's user area.) I don't think it was ever intended that these functions be able to operate on arbitrary (non-running) processes. -GAWollman To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200101241547.KAA61320>