Re: Thoughts on TMPFS no longer being considered "highly

On 23 June 2011 17:31, David O'Brien <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Does anyone object to this patch?
>
> David Wolfskill and I have run TMPFS on a number of machines for two
> years with no problems.
>
> I may have missed something, but I'm not aware of any serious PRs on
> TMPFS either.
>
>
> Index: tmpfs_vfsops.c
> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
> --- tmpfs_vfsops.c =A0 =A0 =A0(revision 221113)
> +++ tmpfs_vfsops.c =A0 =A0 =A0(working copy)
> @@ -155,9 +155,6 @@ tmpfs_mount(struct mount *mp)
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0return EOPNOTSUPP;
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0}
>
> - =A0 =A0 =A0 printf("WARNING: TMPFS is considered to be a highly experim=
ental "
> - =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 "feature in FreeBSD.\n");
> -
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0vn_lock(mp->mnt_vnodecovered, LK_SHARED | LK_RETRY);
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0error =3D VOP_GETATTR(mp->mnt_vnodecovered, &va, mp->mnt_c=
red);
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0VOP_UNLOCK(mp->mnt_vnodecovered, 0);
>
> --
> -- David =A0([e-mail])

How about noting that no-one's managed to get it to work correctly
with ZFS yet, but fine with UFS?

Chris
_______________________________________________
[e-mail] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[e-mail]"