Subject: Re: killing the "l" argument from vfs
To: Christos Zoulas <email@example.com>
From: Antti Kantee <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 11/25/2007 18:47:10
On Sat Nov 24 2007 at 21:49:53 +0000, Christos Zoulas wrote:
> In article <20071124200835.GA2143@cs.hut.fi>,
> Antti Kantee <email@example.com> wrote:
> >I'm working on a patch which will rid the vfs interfaces of the randomly
> >teleporting "l". At least VFS_ and VOP_ will get the treatment, I still
> >need to investigate componentname. This will clarify the interfaces,
> >as currently the passed value for lwp might be NULL in some cases.
> >The new way is to fetch curlwp if it's desired (which is already done
> >in plenty of places due to "l" not being always passed)..
> >If someone has problems with this, please scream very loudly very soon.
> Does NFS need it? We should not take it out if we are going to put it back.
Can you be a bit more specific about what you mean? Do you mean if NFS
would need it in componentname now or in the future due to iothreads?
Antti Kantee <firstname.lastname@example.org> Of course he runs NetBSD
"la qualité la plus indispensable du cuisinier est l'exactitude"