Subject: Re: g/c mountcompatnames ?
To: Nathan J. Williams <nathanw@MIT.EDU>
From: Jaromír <email@example.com>
Date: 06/27/2001 23:17:26
Nathan J. Williams wrote:
> Is the maintenance problem simply that there are two tables that must
> be updated when a new file system is added? That's a very small cost.
> Dropping a compat option is not something to be done lightly. I would
> say that it should only ever be done if the presence of the compat
> code actively prevents another important change from being made. Mere
> "cleanup" does not justify removing this feature.
I though about this one a bit more and agree that what I proposed
is not a good thing. It's pointless to break backward compatibility
The way it could be done to address my concern and still retain
backwards compatibility could be as this:
Keep the compat option, but make the vfs_sysctl() use array defined
with CTL_VFS_NAMES, instead of using mountcompatnames. I'd leave
only filesystems supported by NetBSD 0.9 and 4.3BSD on the
mountcompatnames list, and make the variable static. The array
contents would be freezed and not to be changed past that moment.
The array itself would be only defined #ifdef COMPAT_09 || COMPAT_43,
and be static. CTL_VFS_NAMES would get new entries if one adds
a filesystem which supports sysctl, old entries would be kept of course.
This way the backwards compatibility would be retained, and
the issue I had with this is solved too.
Jaromir Dolecek <jdolecek@NetBSD.org> http://www.ics.muni.cz/~dolecek/
NetBSD - just plain best OS! -=*=- Got spare MCA cards or docs? Hand me them!