Subject: Re: new kpi proposal, sysdisk(9)
To: YAMAMOTO Takashi <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Elad Efrat <elad@NetBSD.org>
Date: 12/28/2006 17:10:46
YAMAMOTO Takashi wrote:
>> 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?
>>> 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?
in my original message I said we can, for example, add info as to what
subsystem is making use of the device. I don't have other ideas at the
>> (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.
> YAMAMOTO Takashi
can you explain what VOP_OPEN() should we add flags to in case of swap
device or raidframe? I'm not sure I follow your logic just yet...