On Mon, Jun 02, 2003 at 09:04:11AM -0700, Hiten Pandya wrote: > On Mon, Jun 02, 2003 at 08:17:03AM -0700, Terry Lambert wrote: > > Hiten Pandya wrote: > > > My fingers have been itching to do this since the day phk@ planted this > > > idea in my brain (re: cdevsw initialisations). Basically, it changes > > > the vfsops to use C99 sparse format, just like cdevsw. It removes a lot > > > of junk default initialisations, and duplication. > > > > I really dislike the changes to vfs_init(). Specifically, it's > > not the overhead, so much as it's the implied side effects. > > And how many times is vfc_register() called? Its not in the > patch of an I/O operation or anything. Its just a mount time > overhead which will go through -- a one time thing. > > > Consider this going forward: someone adds a new VFSOP to the > > list of allowable VFSOPs, and the vfs_init() doesn't have any > > specific code for it.
You should look at kobj, it's precisely this sort of dynamic dispatching that it was designed to support. -- Tis a wise thing to know what is wanted, wiser still to know when it has been achieved and wisest of all to know when it is unachievable for then striving is folly. [Magician] _______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
