Re: approach on getting nullfs to work again

["Simon 'corecode' Schubert" <corecode@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

[revisiting nullfs after half a year]

Matthew Dillon wrote:
> :On Wed, Feb 09, 2005 at 02:38:30PM -0800, Matthew Dillon wrote:
> :>     The idea being that instead of having nullfs fake-up
> :>     vnodes (like it does in FreeBSD) we instead have it return the *actual*
> :>     vnode and only fake-up the namecache topology.
> :I think we still have to create "fake" vnodes because we have to catch
> :and certain VOPs in the nullfs directly instead of passing them to the
> :parent. One important issue is fstatfs, but the directory operations
> :have similiar needs.
>      Only for unionfs.  For nullfs (where no merging is taking place) I
>      am pretty certain we don't have to fake file OR directory vnodes.

Alright, after reading code again and thinking about it I see that we 
don't need faked vnodes :)

This is nice, indeed.  I'll look into that after I finish my thesis in 
early september, unless somebody beats me to it :)  I can give insight 
on the inner workings of the namecache as far as I understood it, though.

cheers
  simon

--
Serve - BSD     +++  RENT this banner advert  +++    ASCII Ribbon   /"\
Work - Mac      +++  space for low $$$ NOW!1  +++      Campaign     \ /
Party Enjoy Relax   |   http://dragonflybsd.org      Against  HTML   \
Dude 2c 2 the max   !   http://golden-apple.biz       Mail + News   / \