Subject: Re: CVS commit: src/sys
To: Chuck Silvers <>
From: Bill Studenmund <>
List: source-changes
Date: 12/27/2005 15:37:58
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Tue, Dec 27, 2005 at 02:49:24PM -0800, Chuck Silvers wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 24, 2005 at 03:28:06PM +0900, YAMAMOTO Takashi wrote:
> > > One thing I noted in this change is that vget() will now call=20
> > > VOP_INACTIVE() on vnodes that were never activated. Will this cause i=
> > > with other file systems?
> >=20
> > what kind of issues?
> > afaik, vn_lock fails only when the vnode is being reclaimed.
> > in that case, calling vrele doesn't hurt.
> I'm also suspicious of this change.  this change doesn't seem related
> to the purpose given in the check-in comment, is it?  if you really want
> to reduce the amount of duplicate code, why not just split it into
> multiple functions?

A separate checkin might have been good. However at this point, a "cvs=20
admin -m" will probably be enough to fix things up. I agree we should note=
this change, but I don't think it's so bad to include it.

> also, do we really another flag that means the same thing as VXLOCK?
> why not just use VXLOCK?  this would mean rearranging vgonel(), vclean(),
> etc, a bit, but the result would be much nicer.

The difference I see is who gets to set it. VXLOCK is set by vfs_subr.c;=20
it is owned by the FS-independent code. VFREEING, however, is set by the=20
FS-specific code.=20

The only thing I find missing is that there isn't any code which USES the=
new flag. Did a checkin get missed?

Take care,


Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (NetBSD)