Re: Introducing localcount(9)

[Robert Elz <kre%munnari.OZ.AU@localhost>]

    Date:        Wed, 17 May 2017 17:42:12 +0800 (+08)
    From:        Paul Goyette <paul%whooppee.com@localhost>
    Message-ID:  <Pine.NEB.4.64.1705171733220.24153%speedy.whooppee.com@localhost>

  | On Wed, 17 May 2017, Robert Elz wrote:
  | 
  | >    Date:        Tue, 16 May 2017 16:47:24 -0700
  | >    From:        Chuck Silvers <chuq%chuq.com@localhost>
  | >    Message-ID:  <20170516234724.GB11062%spathi.chuq.com@localhost>
  | >
  | >  | and a device being configured as a dump device should also
  | >  | involve keeping a reference on the device_t (probably indirectly via
  | >  | the device being kept open while it is configured as a dump device).
  | >
  | > Wouldn't that prevent the dump device being used for swapping (ie: the
  | > common setup where dumps just overwrite swap when the system crashes) ?

  | Localcount references are just references/counts, not interlocks.

I didn't mean the localcount, but the "(pobably indirectly via
the device being kept open while it is configured as a dump device)"
part of what Chuck said.

kre