Re: /hurd/tmpfs problem

[Thomas Bushnell, BSG]

Roland McGrath <roland@frob.com> writes:

> I don't see that there is anywhere that explicitly states that the
> translator connection protocol requires holding the underlying node send
> right in order to stay attached as the active translator on that node.  Nor
> is there an unavoidable need for that requirement.  The parent filesystem
> could just get dead-name notification on the fsys control port or reap
> stale control ports at convenient times.  
>
> But it seems like a reasonable convention to set in the protocol, and it
> avoids needing to implement any of that.  It just ought to be documented in
> the fsys.defs comments.

At present it is actually a requirement that you hold on to the
underlying node (or, of course, it will get cleared when all active
users go away).  

This should (as you note) be more properly documented.

Thomas