> libnetfs needs the change too.
Opps.
libnetfs/ChangeLog:
2001-06-15 Neal H Walfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* file-set-translator.c (netfs_S_file_set_translator): If
FS_TRANS_ORPHAN is set, do not ask the active translator to go
away, just disconnect it.
Ind
libnetfs needs the change too.
___
Bug-hurd mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-hurd
Great! I've checked in your changes.
___
Bug-hurd mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-hurd
On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 01:00:35AM -0400, Roland McGrath wrote:
> I agree with Neal that a FS_TRANS_* flag is more appropriate--that leaves
> goaway_flags as purely flags passed on to the fsys_goaway RPC, which is a
> clear and easy thing to understand. I think we should call the new flag
> FS_TR
Roland McGrath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I agree with Neal that a FS_TRANS_* flag is more appropriate--that leaves
> goaway_flags as purely flags passed on to the fsys_goaway RPC, which is a
> clear and easy thing to understand.
Yes, agreed, this is better than as a goaway flag. It should
Neal H Walfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I have no objection to adding a flag for file_set_translator to avoid
> > sending the goaway. But calling the flag "disconnect" is wrong: a
> > disconnect happens whether you set that flag or not.
>
> I fail to see how this is true: if the transla
On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 01:00:35AM -0400, Roland McGrath wrote:
> I agree with Neal that a FS_TRANS_* flag is more appropriate--that leaves
> goaway_flags as purely flags passed on to the fsys_goaway RPC, which is a
> clear and easy thing to understand. I think we should call the new flag
> FS_TR
I agree with Neal that a FS_TRANS_* flag is more appropriate--that leaves
goaway_flags as purely flags passed on to the fsys_goaway RPC, which is a
clear and easy thing to understand. I think we should call the new flag
FS_TRANS_ORPHAN, and the settrans option --orphan (perhaps
--detach-old-trans
Neal H Walfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > As for the shell command settrans, I think that -f should timeout, and
> > if nothing happens then repeat the call with the new flag attached.
> > Perhaps there should be a new flag with the current meaning of -f
> > (that is, set the FORCE bit, but
> I have no objection to adding a flag for file_set_translator to avoid
> sending the goaway. But calling the flag "disconnect" is wrong: a
> disconnect happens whether you set that flag or not.
I fail to see how this is true: if the translator, in response to
fsys_goaway, returns an error, disk
I have no objection to adding a flag for file_set_translator to avoid
sending the goaway. But calling the flag "disconnect" is wrong: a
disconnect happens whether you set that flag or not.
I suggest FSYS_GOAWAY_NORPC or FSYS_GOAWAY_NOGOAWAY or something like
that, that accurate describes what t
Perhaps the question to ask is: under what circumstances is
`--disconnect' desirable?
Indeed, according to Roland's explanation, you would need --disconnect
when the filesystem server isn't honouring the fsys_goaway (or,
alternatively, you could just kill the process).
I like `--detach' a little
Neal H Walfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > What does --force do in the current code? From a user perspective, I
> > think --force should do whatever is needed to get the translator
> > disappear. In this case, it should probably try to make the translator
> > go away nicely, and if that fail
> I think this help is a little confusing and hard to understand. How
> would you explain the difference between --force and --disconnect to a
> user?
>
> What does --force do in the current code? From a user perspective, I
> think --force should do whatever is needed to get the translator
> disa
Neal H Walfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>{"recursive", 'R', 0, 0, "Shutdown its children too"},
>{"force", 'f', 0, 0, "If it doesn't want to die, force it"},
>{"nosync", 'S', 0, 0, "Don't sync it before killing it"},
> + {"disconnect", 'd', 0, 0, "Disconnect the tra
> Your code does nothing to either translator setting, but just sends an
> fsys_goaway to the active translator. This leaves it up to the translator
> to die or not as it chooses. The file_set_translator RPC that will be made
> by "settrans -a FILE" to the parent filesystem will do the same fsys
On Sat, Mar 31, 2001 at 11:46:45PM -0500, Roland McGrath wrote:
> I don't understand what your option is supposed to do.
After looking at the code some more, my code adds nothing.
PGP signature
I don't understand what your option is supposed to do.
With -a and but no -p, regardless of the other options, settrans
will not affect the passive translator. The file_set_translator
RPC affects either passive or active or both, according to the flags
arguments.
Your code does nothing to ei
This patch was inspired by the TODO item:
** settrans:
*** needs an option to make the active go away without using goaway. !
Note that I choose `-l' (i.e. leave passive translator) for lack of
a more fitting letter.
2001-03-29 Neal H Walfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* settrans.c: New ar
19 matches
Mail list logo
