Re: Build fix

[Robert Watson <rwatson@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, 26 Apr 2001, Michael C . Wu wrote:

> On Fri, Apr 20, 2001 at 06:24:43PM -0400, Robert Watson scribbled:
> | On 20 Apr 2001, Tom Maher wrote:
> 
> If we ever plan on importing OpenAFS, should our development and porting
> platform be 5.0-CURRENT instead?  I realize the similiarities in
> toolchains, etc.  However, Since OpenAFS is technically a
> ``filesystem,'' with the precedence of NFS and Coda, we should at least
> make sure it works with our development platform. 

Well, it's certainly arguable that the kernel module should work on both
4.x-STABLE and 5.0-CURRENT.  I would imagine that, in general, the
userland code wouldn't care much if at all which it is running on.  There
have been some VFS changes between -STABLE and -CURRENT, but the most
notable difference lies in the kernel synchronization primitives.  If you
take a look at Boris's SMBFS code, you'll see he works around this by
abstracting away from {lockmgr, sxlock} to make use of a generic locking
interface.  This is probably the right approach for file system modules
that are under active development and intended to work on both branches. 

Robert N M Watson             FreeBSD Core Team, TrustedBSD Project
robert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx      NAI Labs, Safeport Network Services



To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxx
with "unsubscribe freebsd-afs" in the body of the message