From owner-freebsd-fs Sun Jan 23 1:17:45 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Received: from mail4.aracnet.com (mail4.aracnet.com [216.99.193.36]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 77DB814D2A for ; Sun, 23 Jan 2000 01:17:43 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from beattie@aracnet.com) Received: from shell1.aracnet.com (IDENT:root@shell1.aracnet.com [216.99.193.21]) by mail4.aracnet.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA15725; Sun, 23 Jan 2000 01:17:49 -0800 Received: from localhost by shell1.aracnet.com (8.9.3) id BAA05112; Sun, 23 Jan 2000 01:19:25 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: shell1.aracnet.com: beattie owned process doing -bs Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2000 01:19:25 -0800 (PST) From: Brian Beattie To: Assar Westerlund Cc: Greg Lehey , Robert Watson , fs@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: UDF, userfs In-Reply-To: <5liu0l1ay3.fsf@assaris.sics.se> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On 23 Jan 2000, Assar Westerlund wrote: > Greg Lehey writes: > > Hmm. A kld runs in kernel context, not user context. Sure, it's > > easier to load than rebuilding a kernel, and I believe klds are the > > correct approach to added kernel functionality, but it doesn't offer > > one of the prime advantages of userland development: if your program > > crashes, your program crashes, not the system. If you're developing a > > kld, a bug can crash the system. > > Yes, but both the Coda and the Arla kld are very simple and all the I would disagree that they are very simple. > real work (and thus, the devlopment) takes part in the user space > daemon. The kld is mostly there as a way of communicating with the > kernel. > > /assar > Brian Beattie | The only problem with beattie@aracnet.com | winning the rat race ... www.aracnet.com/~beattie | in the end you're still a rat To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-fs" in the body of the message