Remove a comment that has been not only obsolete but patently wrong for the

last 31 revisions (almost three years).
This commit is contained in:
Dag-Erling Smørgrav 2000-09-04 18:18:17 +00:00
parent f699bbbbe4
commit 18203af447
2 changed files with 0 additions and 16 deletions

View file

@ -187,14 +187,6 @@ procfs_close(ap)
if ((ap->a_fflag & FWRITE) && (pfs->pfs_flags & O_EXCL))
pfs->pfs_flags &= ~(FWRITE|O_EXCL);
/*
* This rather complicated-looking code is trying to
* determine if this was the last close on this particular
* vnode. While one would expect v_usecount to be 1 at
* that point, it seems that (according to John Dyson)
* the VM system will bump up the usecount. So: if the
* usecount is 2, and VOBJBUF is set, then this is really
* the last close. Otherwise, if the usecount is < 2
* then it is definitely the last close.
* If this is the last close, then it checks to see if
* the target process has PF_LINGER set in p_pfsflags,
* if this is *not* the case, then the process' stop flags

View file

@ -187,14 +187,6 @@ procfs_close(ap)
if ((ap->a_fflag & FWRITE) && (pfs->pfs_flags & O_EXCL))
pfs->pfs_flags &= ~(FWRITE|O_EXCL);
/*
* This rather complicated-looking code is trying to
* determine if this was the last close on this particular
* vnode. While one would expect v_usecount to be 1 at
* that point, it seems that (according to John Dyson)
* the VM system will bump up the usecount. So: if the
* usecount is 2, and VOBJBUF is set, then this is really
* the last close. Otherwise, if the usecount is < 2
* then it is definitely the last close.
* If this is the last close, then it checks to see if
* the target process has PF_LINGER set in p_pfsflags,
* if this is *not* the case, then the process' stop flags