Patches to get Arla running on FreeBSD 8-CURRENT

[Robert Watson]

On Mon, 25 Feb 2008, Alec Kloss wrote:

> I can shed a little light.  It's definitely broken now as fs nnpfsdeb 
> almost-all has no effect.  I added the check for PRIV_NNPFS_DEBUG in 
> nnpfs_common-bsd.c:
>
> +#elif defined(HAVE_KERNEL_PRIV_CHECK) && defined(PRIV_NNPFS_DEBUG)
>
> because on my -current box PRIV_NNPFS_DEBUG isn't defined.  I thought it 
> might be an OpenBSD-ism.  Regardless, I would think it *should* fall back to 
> checking with suser() but apparently it doesn't.  I can investigate a bit 
> more, but removing nnpfs_deb.h must have broader impact than we though. 
> Robert, any thoughts about what PRIV_NNPFS_DEBUG should be?

PRIV_NNPFS_DEBUG is a definition that will appear in FreeBSD 7.1, but 7.0 was 
already in final freeze when I added it to 8.x + 7.x.  The reason I didn't 
have a specific check for PRIV_NNPFS_DEBUG is that I adapted nnpfs for 8.x, 
but not 7.0.  If priv(9) is present but not PRIV_NNPFS_DEBUG, we should use 
PRIV_ROOT for now.

>> With respect to (2), I need to look at the details, but I believe this has 
>> to do with the fact that nnpfs is relying on generated files that may not 
>> be present in a kernel source tree.  The more right fix may be to force 
>> generation of the files (if we can) in the nnpfs build, as we already do 
>> for vnode_if.h, but I'll have to look in more detail.
>
> I think this is correct too.  Things like machine/endian.h aren't in the 
> kernel tree.  I should be able to autoconf this for just FreeBSD if that's 
> how we want to approach this.  If you want to have configure generate these 
> headers like vnode_if.h, I'll probably need a few hints, but I'll do what I 
> can.

Indeed, it was machine/endian.h that did it.

Robert N M Watson
Computer Laboratory
University of Cambridge