svn commit: r345198 - projects/fuse2/share/man/man9

[Alan Somers]

On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 1:22 PM Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 06:50:36PM +0000, Alan Somers wrote:
> > Author: asomers
> > Date: Fri Mar 15 18:50:36 2019
> > New Revision: 345198
> > URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/345198
> >
> > Log:
> >   VOP_INACTIVE(9): clarify wording
> >
> >   Reviewed by:        kib, 0mp
> >   MFC after:  2 weeks
> >   Sponsored by:       The FreeBSD Foundation
> >   Differential Revision:      https://reviews.freebsd.org/D19596
> >
> > Modified:
> >   projects/fuse2/share/man/man9/VOP_INACTIVE.9
> >
> > Modified: projects/fuse2/share/man/man9/VOP_INACTIVE.9
> > ==============================================================================
> > --- projects/fuse2/share/man/man9/VOP_INACTIVE.9      Fri Mar 15 18:50:00 2019        (r345197)
> > +++ projects/fuse2/share/man/man9/VOP_INACTIVE.9      Fri Mar 15 18:50:36 2019        (r345198)
> > @@ -28,7 +28,7 @@
> >  .\"
> >  .\" $FreeBSD$
> >  .\"
> > -.Dd July 27, 2014
> > +.Dd March 15, 2019
> >  .Dt VOP_INACTIVE 9
> >  .Os
> >  .Sh NAME
> > @@ -50,13 +50,16 @@ The vnode being reclaimed.
> >  .El
> >  .Pp
> >  .Fn VOP_INACTIVE
> > -is called when the kernel is no longer using the vnode.
> > +is usually called when the kernel is no longer using the vnode.
> > +However, there is no guarantee that it will be called at all, for example if
> > +the last reference was dropped while the vnode lock could not be upgraded
> > +to exclusive without sleeping.
> >  This may be
> >  because the reference count reaches zero or it may be that the
> >  file system is being forcibly unmounted while there are open files.
> > -It can be used to reclaim space for
> > +It can be used to reclaim space on the last close of an
> >  .Sq open but deleted
> > -files.
> > +file.
> >  .Pp
> >  .Fn VOP_RECLAIM
> >  is called when a vnode is being reused for a different file system.
> Why did you committed to the branch ?  I do not think it is on-topic there,
> and would like to see the wording fixes propagated back to stable branches.
> I.e. even if you merge this to HEAD in some future, I do not think it is
> easy to merge to stable-XX from there as part of the large commit.

Because I forgot that I had the branch checked out instead of head.
I'll merge it to head soon, and then it will be treated like any other
head commit.
-Alan