On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 02:29:09PM +0300, Kostik Belousov wrote: > On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 03:12:45PM +0400, Igor Sysoev wrote:
> > > What I dislike about the patch is the new kernel-private flag that is > > > eaten from the open(2) flags namespace. We do already have FHASLOCK, > > > so far the only such flag. > > > > We can change > > int f_seqcount; > > to > > u_int f_seqcount; > > > > and can use highest bit instead of O_READAHEAD: anyway f_seqcount is shifted > > to 16 bits left. > > Or do the same trick as was done for FHASLOCK and override some flag that > is not saved after open, see FMASK. > > Or split f_seqcount into two u_short fields, one for f_seqcount, second for > f_kflag, and use the later for FHASLOCK and FREADAHEAD. [We are trying to > not grow struct file unless absolutely neccessary]. I agree that struct file should not grow (at least in this case). However, I believe splitting f_seqcount into two fields will break kernel ABI. Or not ? I think f_seqcount should be splitted in 9-CURRENT and probably, in 8-STABLE, but in 7-STABLE we may use the open(2) flags namespace. -- Igor Sysoev http://sysoev.ru/en/ _______________________________________________ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
