Subject: Re: NAMECACHE_ENTER_REVERSE (Re: CVS commit: src/sys/kern)
To: None <email@example.com>
From: YAMAMOTO Takashi <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 11/30/2006 23:08:01
> On Nov 29, 5:43pm, email@example.com (YAMAMOTO Takashi) wrote:
> -- Subject: Re: NAMECACHE_ENTER_REVERSE (Re: CVS commit: src/sys/kern)
> | > >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 I deal with the failure, I think that they will work.
then, the current implementation only sometimes works, right?
> | > >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.
> I thought that Linux stores the pathname.
linux can construct the pathname from "dcache" entries.