--jho1yZJdad60DJr+
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Fri, Dec 29, 2006 at 10:01:04PM +0900, YAMAMOTO Takashi wrote:
> > > do you mean that raidframe doesn't have to involve VOP_OPEN or d_open?
> >=20
> > maybe. I didn't really look into it yet.
>=20
> although i didn't take a look either,
> i don't think it can use underlying devices without VOP_OPEN
> or d_open.

In the past, I think you've been able to use a disk device w/o an open=20
(inside the kernel of course). I think we want to prevent that (i.e. if=20
RAIDFrame is not calling VOP_OPEN(), it should change). Among other=20
things, I can think of session-based devices (like iSCSI) where the=20
subsystem behavior changes between currently-open and not-currently-open=20
devices. For iSCSI, session reinstatement is much more important if the=20
device is open than if it's closed.

Take care,

Bill

--jho1yZJdad60DJr+
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (NetBSD)

iD8DBQFFlW8BWz+3JHUci9cRAvs1AJ0VtkdnSah0/O19r3ot94xCn+ZQqACfQoS2
SYS7+Lk4rn2QanQHZVUHd6g=
=5zrJ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--jho1yZJdad60DJr+--