Peter Wemm wrote: > David Greenman wrote: > > I've heard from both of you that you think the other is wrong. This isn' t > > very helpful, however, in finding the correct solution. What I'd like to he ar > > from both of you is the reasons why swap is better as a device, or not. The re > > seems to be some unstated architectural philosophy that needs to be stated > > before any informed decision can be made about what is the right direction to > > go in. > > The problem is that swapdev_vp needs to handle VOP_STRATEGY(), and swapdev_vp > is incorrectly being pointed at spec_vnops. Here is a proposed (UNTESTED!) > clean fix: This is missing a vop_default entry, so it will panic. But as a proof of concept it still stands. Cheers, -Peter To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
- Re: Proposed patch to fix VN device (again) Matthew Dillon
- Re: Proposed patch to fix VN device (again) Poul-Henning Kamp
- Re: Proposed patch to fix VN device (again) Matthew Dillon
- Re: Proposed patch to fix VN device (again) Poul-Henning Kamp
- Re: Proposed patch to fix VN device (again) Matthew Dillon
- Re: Proposed patch to fix VN device (again) Poul-Henning Kamp
- Re: Proposed patch to fix VN device (again) Jordan K. Hubbard
- Re: Proposed patch to fix VN device (again) Kip Macy
- Re: Proposed patch to fix VN device (again) David Greenman
- Re: Proposed patch to fix VN device (again) Peter Wemm
- Re: Proposed patch to fix VN device (again) Peter Wemm
- Re: Proposed patch to fix VN device (again) Matthew Dillon
- Re: Proposed patch to fix VN device (again) Poul-Henning Kamp
- Re: Proposed patch to fix VN device (again) Matthew Dillon
- Re: Proposed patch to fix VN device (again) Peter Wemm
- Re: Proposed patch to fix VN device (again) Matthew Dillon
- Re: Proposed patch to fix VN device (again) Peter Wemm
- Re: Proposed patch to fix VN device (again) Brad Knowles
- Re: Proposed patch to fix VN device (again) Peter Wemm