> UDF's VOP_STRATEGY() gets calls from VOP_READ() using bread() on the vnode 
> and from genfs's {get,put}_pages. Both buffers are are not according to the 
> spec.

what spec are you talking about?

> VOP_STRATEGY buffers
> --------------------
> vop_strategy buffers are passed from genfs in 
> sys/miscfs/genfs/genfs_vnops.c:836's VOP_TRATEGY call and created at either 
> line 673 or at line 810 of the same file. In the buffer `mbp' created at 
> line 673, all seems OK but at the buffer `bp' created at line 810, 
> bp->b_bufsize is not initialised and thus ZERO!!!! quite a violation.

violate what?

> pages, the `bp' are still pointing at... Aparently this code is written so 
> that `mbp' can be waited for by `biowait' when all `bp' fragments are 
> ready. But the struct buf's claimed from genfs's own pool are not returned 
> to the pool. Each time this fragmented scheme is used, memory gets lost.

they are released by uvm_aio_biodone1().

> bread buffers
> -------------
> vop_strategy buffers are passed from bread() in sys/kern/vfs_bio.c's 
> bio_doread() at line 597's VOP_STRATEGY().
> 
> These buffers are claimed/looked up just before in line 577's getblk(). 
> When passed to UDF's vop_strategy() bp->b_resid is undefined though mostly 
> ZERO. Also not according to the struct buf's specs wich would suggest the 
> number of bytes to be read/written in/from the buffer to be bp->b_resid.

so?  do you have any problem with it?
b_resid will be set by device drivers if needed.

> Other filingsystems
> ----------
> Filingsystems seem to cope with it by passing the buffers directly to the 
> device layer that aparently ignores most of the buf contents and only 
> reacts to bp->b_count.
> 
> Filingsystems that do care about the buffer contents are also only looking 
> at bp->b_count.

so?  do you think it's a problem?  why?

this PR seems bogus to me.  is it ok to close?

YAMAMOTO Takashi