Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 18:13:37 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> To: michaelh@cet.co.jp (Michael Hancock) Cc: terry@lambert.org, koshy@india.hp.com, freebsd-hackers@freefall.freebsd.org Subject: Re: Heidemann Framework integration (Re: Other filesystems under FreeBSD) Message-ID: <199612170113.SAA04996@phaeton.artisoft.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.SV4.3.95.961217095658.527C-100000@parkplace.cet.co.jp> from "Michael Hancock" at Dec 17, 96 09:58:49 am
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > The main problem areas in the 4.4BSD/FreeBSD implementation of the > > Heidemann framework are: > > > > There are also vops that don't take a vp as a parameter. bwrite and > bstrategy. They should; more likely, blocked I/O should be implemented as a layer above the FS. The devfs code is a very special case if you don't have specfs or allow device nodes on other FS's (you can use symlinks for the same effect). Given that, if there were still a need for it, and it couldn't be represented in the uio struct, or in the name space by virtue of the vp that came back from the open, then VOP_IOCTL on the vp seems right. Anyway... that's part of "and so on...". Regards, Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199612170113.SAA04996>