On Sep 27, 2005, at 5:55 PM, Bill Studenmund wrote:

> Since when are VOPs so holy that their use in a manner which predated
> NetBSD by years is an abuse? :-)

Since when has "it pre-exists NetBSD" been an excuse to not clean up  
a broken kernel interface?

> Also, we have VOP indirection. We evidently now have GOP (which I was
> unaware of). UFS will need some form of comparable indirection  
> goign with
> what you suggest. We will then end up with three indirection  
> methods that
> are mostly alike yet different. If we are talking about  
> cleanliness, how
> is it cleaner to do almost the same thing three different ways?

VOP is really supposed to be a public interface... it's just plain  
wrong to have private functions exposed by the public interface.

> We're doing C++ in C. Why do it three times? :-)

Oh, we're not really doing that... :-)

-- thorpej