Subject: Re: new kpi proposal, sysdisk(9)
To: None <elad@NetBSD.org>
From: YAMAMOTO Takashi <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 12/28/2006 23:59:52
> YAMAMOTO Takashi wrote:
> >> do you have idea on how to achieve the same
> >> (for mounts, swap devices, raidframe, and potentially other subsystems;
> >> that's the tricky part ;) with struct specinfo or struct disk?
> >> -e.
> > for example, add a flag to VOP_OPEN and VOP_CLOSE (and corresponding
> > device driver entries) to say "it's open for mount" (or swap, etc)
> > so that the info can be maintained in a similar way to openmasks.
> > YAMAMOTO Takashi
> other than the obvious issue of this being not as extensible as
> sysdisk(9), the VOP interface is something I'd rather not touch. :)
extensible? can you explain?
> (not only because this specific extension may be an ugly hack,
> and again, I'm not sure possible for all users of the proposed
> interface, but because I think VOP is messy as it is.)
what you are proposing seems like another kind of open/close to me.
VOP_OPEN and VOP_CLOSE are appropriate ways to handle them.