Subject: Re: vop_symlink and unused vpp?
To: Bill Studenmund <>
From: Assar Westerlund <>
List: tech-kern
Date: 07/19/2001 21:19:27
Bill Studenmund <> writes:
> As I believe you were changing the locking rules so that the *vpp comes
> back locked, all will be well.


> The one thing I'm unclear on (partly as I wasn't fully paying
> attention :-) is that one of the other comments will hold true (just above
> it):
>          * (Assumes that the lower layer always returns
>          * a VREF'ed vpp unless it gets an error.)
> i.e. we always get passed a &vp - we never pass in NULL - and the lower fs
> always fills one in if it doesn't return an error.

Currently it doesn't.  Both vop_mknod and vop_symlink can choose to
return NULL, and their other callers are aware of that.  Should we
change that to require them to return a locked vnode or an error?