`fileops' declaration fix?

[Assar Westerlund]

Does anyone have any objections to applying this patch?

/assar

Index: kern/exec_script.c
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/src/sys/kern/exec_script.c,v
retrieving revision 1.9
diff -u -w -r1.9 exec_script.c
--- kern/exec_script.c 1999/10/18 17:07:11 1.9
+++ kern/exec_script.c 2000/01/30 20:08:35
@@ -166,7 +166,6 @@
#endif
) {
struct file *fp;
- extern struct fileops vnops;

#if defined(DIAGNOSTIC) && defined(FDSCRIPTS)
if (epp->ep_flags & EXEC_HASFD)
Index: kern/kern_exec.c
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/src/sys/kern/kern_exec.c,v
retrieving revision 1.38
diff -u -w -u -w -r1.38 kern_exec.c
--- kern/kern_exec.c 2000/01/24 22:44:58 1.38
+++ kern/kern_exec.c 2000/01/30 20:46:27
@@ -539,7 +539,6 @@
*/
if (fp == NULL) {
short flags = FREAD | (i == 0 ? 0 : FWRITE);
- extern struct fileops vnops;
struct nameidata nd;
int indx;

Index: kern/vfs_syscalls.c
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/src/sys/kern/vfs_syscalls.c,v
retrieving revision 1.60
diff -u -w -u -w -r1.60 vfs_syscalls.c
--- kern/vfs_syscalls.c 1999/12/06 07:28:06 1.60
+++ kern/vfs_syscalls.c 2000/01/30 20:48:08
@@ -867,7 +867,6 @@
int type, indx, error, localtrunc = 0;
struct flock lf;
struct nameidata nd;
- extern struct fileops vnops;

if ((error = falloc(p, &nfp, &indx)) != 0)
return (error);
Index: sys/file.h
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/src/sys/sys/file.h,v
retrieving revision 1.4
diff -u -w -r1.4 file.h
--- sys/file.h 1998/03/01 19:33:54 1.4
+++ sys/file.h 2000/01/30 20:08:38
@@ -78,5 +78,6 @@
extern struct filelist filehead; /* head of list of open files */
extern int maxfiles; /* kernel limit on number of open files */
extern int nfiles; /* actual number of open files */
+extern struct fileops vnops; /* vnode operations for files */

#endif /* _KERNEL */

[Niklas Hallqvist]

> From: Assar Westerlund <as...@sics.se>
> Date: 30 Jan 2000 21:50:31 +0100

>
> Does anyone have any objections to applying this patch?
>

I like it, but it'd be nice to know that no other part of the kernel is
stupid enough to define another entity named "vnops"... But if so
it'll be easy to fix, so my vote is: commit.

Niklas

[Assar Westerlund]

Niklas Hallqvist <nik...@appli.se> writes:
> I like it, but it'd be nice to know that no other part of the kernel is
> stupid enough to define another entity named "vnops"...

I did gid for vnops and didn't find any other.

> But if so it'll be easy to fix, so my vote is: commit.

Done

/assar