From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG  Wed Jun 18 05:28:49 2003
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 7885C37B401; Wed, 18 Jun 2003 05:28:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (critter.freebsd.dk [212.242.86.163])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 80EA643FDF; Wed, 18 Jun 2003 05:28:48 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from phk@phk.freebsd.dk)
Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by critter.freebsd.dk (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h5ICSlBE039516;
	Wed, 18 Jun 2003 14:28:47 +0200 (CEST)
	(envelope-from phk@phk.freebsd.dk)
To: Dmitry Sivachenko <demon@freebsd.org>
From: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 18 Jun 2003 16:20:54 +0400."
             <20030618122054.GA55870@fling-wing.demos.su> 
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 14:28:47 +0200
Message-ID: <39515.1055939327@critter.freebsd.dk>
cc: arch@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/fs/nullfs null.h null_subr.c null_vnops.c 
X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture
	<freebsd-arch.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch>,
	<mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-arch>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-arch@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch>,
	<mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 12:28:49 -0000

In message <20030618122054.GA55870@fling-wing.demos.su>, Dmitry Sivachenko writes
:
>On Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 01:53:29PM +0200, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
>> All of this have tangled the simple component formerly known as the
>> buffer cache up in so many ways, that it is very hard for anybody
>> to make heads and tails of it any more.
>> 
>> So I am tempted to answer you question with:  "Because it is all a
>> mess"
>> 
>
>Are there any more-or-less correct FS implementation in the system one
>could learn how things should be done from?

The only arguably correct FS we have is by fiat of most use UFS.
Unfortunately that is also the most complex FS we have.

This is also a situation we should try to fix.

-- 
Poul-Henning Kamp       | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
phk@FreeBSD.ORG         | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer       | BSD since 4.3-tahoe    
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.