James Carlson wrote: > Gary Winiger writes: > >>Evolving to Uncommitted is requested in light of a future planned but, >>not yet scheduled, project to integrate the device allocation functionality >>under Tamarack: Removable Media Enhancements in Solaris (PSARC/2005/399) >>for all of the Solaris configurations. > > > Does this mean that Sun Ray will need and get a contract? I don't see > one in the case directory. >
Because Sun Ray is using now Uncommitted interfaces? I guess. I'll check with Gary when he's back (on Monday?). >>+ On a system configured with Trusted Extensions, the >>+ following additional exit values are returned: >>+ >>+ 3 Mounting of device failed. Caller shall not >>+ place device in error state. >>+ >>+ 4 Mounting of device succeeded. > > > This seems a little over-complicated. I would suggest returning 0 for > the mount-succeeded case and adding just: > > 3 Allocation succeeded, but mounting failed. Media may > be in unformatted state. Caller should not assume > device has failed. > > (In other words, I don't see a difference between codes 4 and 0.) > Mounting/unmounting during allocation/deallocation (done through device_clean) is done only in TX. In TX, if allocate does not mount the device (for non-mountable devices, and for mountable devices for which user opts to not mount them), allocate needs to create device nodes in the non-global zone in which the device is being allocated. So, there needs to be a distinction between general success (0) and mount success (4) because allocate needs to know that it has to create device nodes in the non-global zone after general success from device_clean, but not after mount success from device_clean. - Ashish.
