On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 10:49:59AM +0000, Robert N. M. Watson wrote: > > On 29 Dec 2012, at 04:43, Alfred Perlstein wrote: > > > Yes. Kib and I chatted offline, it seems that the SOP is really "there is > > no guarantee about KPI when talking about VFS" so the headache that it > > would be to write the shim layer and maintain it (particularly considering > > the 9.x release cycle slowness) was not worth it. > > > > In a few days I'm going to blow up the extra entries in VFSOPS and VOPS by > > some 10 entries to hopefully keep us KPI friendly for the next release. I > > may also introduce a VFS_KPI version number. Let me know if you have any > > thoughts on that, my thoughts are basically to make it like > > FreeBSD_version, and eventually someone can add macros for VFS klds to > > refuse to load depending on VFS_KPI. > > I don't think stub entries hurt. > > But I think a VFS_KPI version number is premature. We have the version number for eons, but it is unusable because there is no defined VFS KPI. See VFS_VERSION in the sys/sys/mount.h and its use for the module loading and filesystem registrations.
pgpmEF0UxCB7V.pgp
Description: PGP signature
