cvs commit: src/sys/fs/hpfs hpfs_vfsops.c hpfs_vnops.c src/sys/fs/msdosfs msdosfs_vfsops.c msdosfs_vnops.c src/sys/fs/ntfs ntfs_vfsops.c ntfs_vnops.c src/sys/fs/nullfs null_vfsops.c null_vnops.c src/sys/fs/udf udf.h udf_vfsops.c ...

[Coleman Kane]

On 2/16/07, Robert Watson <rwatson at freebsd.org> wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, 16 Feb 2007, Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Feb 16, 2007 at 07:33:12AM +0000, Robert Watson wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thu, 15 Feb 2007, Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote:
> >>
> >>> Move vnode-to-file-handle translation from vfs_vptofh to vop_vptofh
> method.
> >>> This way we may support multiple structures in v_data vnode field
> within
> >>> one file system without using black magic.
> >>>
> >>> Vnode-to-file-handle should be VOP in the first place, but was made
> VFS
> >>> operation to keep interface as compatible as possible with SUN's VFS.
> >>> BTW. Now Solaris also implements vnode-to-file-handle as VOP
> operation.
> >>>
> >>> VFS_VPTOFH() was left for API backward compatibility, but is marked
> for
> >>> removal before 8.0-RELEASE.
> >>>
> >>> Approved by:    mckusick
> >>> Discussed with: many (on IRC)
> >>> Tested with:    ufs, msdosfs, cd9660, nullfs and zfs
> >>
> >> Do you think API backward compatibility is actually required in 7.x
> ?  It
> >> looks like you've updated all the file systems, in which case the
> >> temptation would be to drop it as we already have other VFS changes in
> 7.x
> >> from 6.x.
> >
> > Those changes break API or only ABI? My change break ABI backward
> > compatibility, but I thought it will be good to leave API compatibility
> so
> > 3rd party file systems (eg. from ports) have time to catch-up. If this
> is
> > not necessary, I'll remove it right away.
>
> I'd rather we forced the breakage sooner, as ports may not get fixed if
> they
> don't get broken.  :-)  Doing it now maximizes the amount of time for
> these
> changes to settle, and mean that new work will be done to the new
> APIs.  If
> there were MFC plans for this, then having compatibility APIs in the MFC
> is
> important, of course.
>
> Robert N M Watson
> Computer Laboratory
> University of Cambridge


Patches to fix the brokenness in these ports can always be applied through
the ports system until the author gets around to fixing them, so I think
this is a good move. I fancy the approach of moving forward this development
as quickly as possible. Especially while 7.0 is still under development.

--
coleman