Re: More duplicate code, vnode locking question

[Elad Efrat <elad%NetBSD.org@localhost>]

On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 1:05 AM, Antti Kantee <pooka%cs.hut.fi@localhost> wrote:

>> For now I'll just focus on my original goal then, and it looks like
>> requiring that devvp is locked for genfs_can_mount() is okay, so I'll
>> just do that.
>
> Sounds good, although I still don't support putting it into genfs.
> Pulling it out later may create more work and mess than just defining
> a new module (yes, I do have quite a bit of recent experience on the
> subject).  Maybe we can call it vfscomp_can_mount() for vfs component,
> or even compvfs_can_mount.  ... Ok, it's not *that* important currently,
> call it whatever you want.

I'd rather defer the discussion on how the new module should be named to
an unspecified time. I'm also saying upfront that as long as we preserve
the functionality, I don't care how the functions are named or where
they're placed, so anything is "okay" with me. :)

Thanks,

-e.