From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG  Mon Oct 20 00:53:36 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 CC0B716A4B3; Mon, 20 Oct 2003 00:53:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (critter.freebsd.dk [212.242.86.163])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 98DD743FB1; Mon, 20 Oct 2003 00:53:34 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from phk@phk.freebsd.dk)
Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by critter.freebsd.dk (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id h9K7rP4b007363;
	Mon, 20 Oct 2003 09:53:25 +0200 (CEST)
	(envelope-from phk@phk.freebsd.dk)
To: Andrew Gallatin <gallatin@cs.duke.edu>
From: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 04 Sep 2003 17:34:30 EDT."
             <16215.45030.31344.503298@grasshopper.cs.duke.edu> 
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 09:53:25 +0200
Message-ID: <7362.1066636405@critter.freebsd.dk>
cc: arch@freebsd.org
cc: current@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: DISCUSSION: /dev/fd%d.%d and /dev/{a}cd%d[ac] to be
	discontinued ? 
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: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 07:53:36 -0000

In message <16215.45030.31344.503298@grasshopper.cs.duke.edu>, Andrew Gallatin 
writes:
>
>Poul-Henning Kamp writes:
> > 
> > As soon as these uses of cloning code has been removed, I will move
> > the floppy and CD drivers under GEOM, paving the way for the
> > significant changes to the buf/VM system which some of you have
> > already heard rumours about.  (more will emerge after BSDcon'03)
> > 
> > And now comes the bit which I would like to offer for discussion:
> > 
> > Should we do this for 5.2 instead ?
> > 
>
>I think this sounds good.
>
>Can you give a hint as to what you mean by the significant buf/VM
>system changes?  Are you talking about removing the vnode detour for
>drivers and giving drivers who want it access to the struct file?

... and all that stuff yes.

It's been discussed in various emails in the past.

-- 
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.