Subject: Re: vop_symlink and unused vpp?
To: Bill Studenmund <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Assar Westerlund <email@example.com>
Date: 07/19/2001 14:45:46
Bill Studenmund <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> On 17 Jul 2001, Assar Westerlund wrote:
> > Bill Studenmund <email@example.com> writes:
> > > No objections, just a suggestion. There are a few places where you added
> > > if (error), but didn't indent the following vput. Please do so. Oh, also
> > > please indent the nfs fragment too, though maybe only 4 characters to
> > > prevent the line from wrapping. Your call.
> > My fault for doing the diff with `-w'. All the code is actually indented.
> Ahhh.. Ok. :-)
I did vop_mknod too, and I got another question for you. Is
layer_bypass going to be happy and should I apply this comment fix?
RCS file: /cvsroot/syssrc/sys/miscfs/genfs/layer_vnops.c,v
retrieving revision 1.6
diff -u -w -u -w -r1.6 layer_vnops.c
--- layer_vnops.c 2001/06/07 13:32:47 1.6
+++ layer_vnops.c 2001/07/19 12:45:50
@@ -393,8 +393,7 @@
* Only vop_lookup, vop_create, vop_makedir, vop_bmap,
- * vop_mknod, and vop_symlink return vpp's. The latter
- * two are VPP_WILLRELE, so we won't get here, and vop_bmap
+ * vop_mknod, and vop_symlink return vpp's. vop_bmap
* doesn't call bypass as the lower vpp is fine (we're just
* going to do i/o on it). vop_loookup doesn't call bypass
* as a lookup on "." would generate a locking error.