svn commit: r244663 - stable/9

[Konstantin Belousov]

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.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 834 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/svn-src-stable-9/attachments/20121229/acde0386/attachment.sig>