unix domain sockets on nullfs(5)

[Konstantin Belousov]

On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 12:59:24PM +0200, Mikolaj Golub wrote:
> 
> On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 19:01:51 +0200 Konstantin Belousov wrote:
> 
>  KB> On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 11:55:20AM +0200, Mikolaj Golub wrote:
>  >> 
>  >> On Sat, 18 Feb 2012 23:50:03 +0200 Konstantin Belousov wrote:
>  >> 
>  >>  KB> On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 11:22:03PM +0200, Mikolaj Golub wrote:
>  >>  >> After collecting all suggestions and additional testing I have got this patch
>  >>  >> set:
>  >>  >> 
>  >>  >> http://people.freebsd.org/~trociny/unp_prepare_reclaim.1.patch
>  >>  KB> Including unpcb.h into vfs_subr.c looks too extreme. Put the prototype
>  >>  KB> into vnode.h, possibly renaming the function to vfs_unp_reclaim.
>  >> 
>  >> Done.
>  >> 
>  >>  >> http://people.freebsd.org/~trociny/unp_connect.LOCKSHARED.1.patch
>  >>  >> http://people.freebsd.org/~trociny/VOP_UNP.3.patch
>  >>  KB> I has a painting suggestion there, call the vops VOP_UNP_DETACH etc,
>  >>  KB> otherwise it takes too much reading to understand that it is not undetach.
>  >> 
>  >> Unfortunately, vnode_if.awk does not support underscores in VOP names. It
>  >> failed with "Invalid %% construction" due to the restriction: $2 !~ /^[a-z]+$/.
>  >> So I reverted back to the old naming.
>  KB> Ok, might be it makes sense to try to add underscore to the set of
>  KB> allowed symbols.
> 
>  >> 
>  >> The updated patches:
>  >> 
>  >> http://people.freebsd.org/~trociny/unp_prepare_reclaim.2.patch
>  >> http://people.freebsd.org/~trociny/unp_connect.LOCKSHARED.1.patch
>  >> http://people.freebsd.org/~trociny/VOP_UNP.4.patch
> 
>  KB> In the comment above vfs_unp_reclaim(), say "before socket-type vnode
>  KB> reclamation".
> 
>  KB> I have no further comments.
> 
> I have committed all preparation patches and going to commit the VOP_UNP_*
> bits. The latest version:
> 
> http://people.freebsd.org/~trociny/VOP_UNP.6.patch
> 
> (in this version I added a note to UPDATING).
Ok.

> 
> I am thinking now about 'MFC after'. Thanks to jhb's spare vops it looks like
> it is possible to merge it in stable/9 without breaking the KBI, but then I
> will consume 3 of 5 available spare vops. So is it worth doing?
I do not think that we shall be so restrained on the use of spare VOPs.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 196 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-arch/attachments/20120225/b77232dc/attachment.pgp