> In article <20061128220609.53B8211705@yamt.dyndns.org>,
> YAMAMOTO Takashi <yamt@mwd.biglobe.ne.jp> wrote:
> >> >it's wrong because our name cache is optional.
> >> >ie. a filesystem is free to choose not to use it at all.
> >> >please revert.
> >> 
> >> If the filesystem does not implement it, it fails with an error.
> >> Actually I have a good idea how to deal with the failure in the
> >> procfs "exe" case.
> >
> >then, what's a problem with just failing always and deal with it?
> 
> Some linux-emulated rdbm's don't work.

i'm confused.
while you can deal with the failure, rdbm's don't work?  what does it mean?

> >> >if vnode -> name translation is really necessary, it should be
> >> >implemented in upper layers.  (caller of VOPs, not filesystems.)
> >> 
> >> how? can you please elaborate?
> >
> >something similar to what linux and dragonflybsd do.
> 
> I did not want to keep a full pathname buffer in struct proc. There
> is also the issue of the binary being renamed/removed. I guess those
> are corner cases that are not worth discussing though.

is it related to what i said?  i guess you replied to a wrong message.

YAMAMOTO Takashi