fixing "umount -f" for the NFS client

[Rick Macklem]

Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
> On Sun, 1 Sep 2013, Rick Macklem wrote:
> 
> > Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
> >> On Fri, 30 Aug 2013, Rick Macklem wrote:
> >>
> >>> Kostik wrote:
> >>>> On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 07:43:34PM -0400, Rick Macklem wrote:
> >>>>>>> I assume I would also need to bump __FreeBSD_version (and
> >>>>>>> maybe
> >>>>>>> VFS_VERSION?).
> >>>>>> I think you could avoid it.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> Do you mean I don't need to bump __FreeBSD_version or
> >>>>> VFS_VERSION
> >>>>> or both?
> >>>> I do not see much sense in bumping either of them.
> >>>> You might want to bump __FreeBSD_version when merging to stable.
> >>
> >> Please do bump __FreeBSD_version when merging to stable.  I will
> >> not
> >> make
> >> much noise about -current at the moment, as I'm behind on tracking
> >> it.
> >>
> > Actually, I'm "on the fence" as to whether or not this one should
> > be
> > MFC'd, due to the VFS ABI breakage.
> >
> > Since you (well, actually OpenAFS;-) are the main guy affected by
> > VFS
> > ABI breakage these days, maybe you'd like to comment on this?
> >
> > Also, if anyone else has an opinion w.r.t. MFC'ng a patch that adds
> > a VFS op and, therefore, breaks the VFS ABI, please feel free to
> > comment.
> 
> Oops, this mail got lost.
> 
> I think there are spare vfsops fields, so the MFC can be done in an
> ABI-compatible way.  The new routine is for optional functionality,
> so it
> seems fine.
> 
There are spares vfs ops in 10/current, but not in stable/9. An MFC will
result in a VFS ABI change. (Since 10.0 hasn't been released yet, I didn't
use one of the recently added spares.)

rick

> -Ben
>