Subject: Re: new kpi proposal, sysdisk(9)
To: YAMAMOTO Takashi <email@example.com>
From: Elad Efrat <elad@NetBSD.org>
Date: 12/28/2006 19:03:38
YAMAMOTO Takashi wrote:
> do you mean that raidframe doesn't have to involve VOP_OPEN or d_open?
maybe. I didn't really look into it yet.
>> or the interface can simply be changed to take a
>> different parameter.
> which interface are you talking about?
sysdisk(9). it doesn't have to take vp.
> i prefer another argument, but i don't think it is very important.
if it can be passed in mode bits, and we find a way to resolve the issue
for raidframe, we might be able to use it, but that'd probably mean
adding another vnode flag etc.