Ashish Joshi writes: > > 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?
Yes. Changes without notification are allowed at Minor release boundaries, and there's no way for Sun Ray to know. > I guess. I'll > check with Gary when he's back (on Monday?). OK. > > (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. Understood. > 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. Yep. > 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. Because something else creates the nodes or because the nodes are not needed or wanted in that case? Having multiple flavors of success seems like a mistake to me (given the usual design pattern for UNIX interfaces), but I guess it's just a nit and I'll let it drop. -- James Carlson, Solaris Networking <james.d.carlson at sun.com> Sun Microsystems / 1 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084 MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677
