From owner-freebsd-fs Wed Aug 18 11: 8: 2 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Received: from alpo.whistle.com (alpo.whistle.com [207.76.204.38]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 13FD81505D; Wed, 18 Aug 1999 11:07:53 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from julian@whistle.com) Received: from current1.whistle.com (current1.whistle.com [207.76.205.22]) by alpo.whistle.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id LAA09356; Wed, 18 Aug 1999 11:00:47 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 11:01:58 -0700 (PDT) From: Julian Elischer To: Poul-Henning Kamp Cc: Bill Studenmund , Terry Lambert , Alton Matthew , Hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, fs@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: BSD XFS Port & BSD VFS Rewrite In-Reply-To: <830.934961572@critter.freebsd.dk> 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 Wed, 18 Aug 1999, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > Matt doesn't represent the FreeBSD project, and even if he rewrites > the VFS subsystem so he can understand it, his rewrite would face > considerable resistance on its way into FreeBSD. I don't think > there is reason to rewrite it, but there certainly are areas > that need fixing. You are misinformed as far as I know.. From discussions I saw, th main architect of a VFS rewrite would be Kirk, and Matt would be acting as Kirk's right-hand-man. > > >> The use of the "vfs_default" to make unimplemented VOP's > >> fall through to code which implements function, while well > >> intentioned, is misguided. > > I beg to differ. The only difference is that we pass through > multiple layers before we hit the bottom of the stack. There is > no loss of functionality but significant gain of clarity and > modularity. Well I believe that Kirk considers them misguided too, but he stated that he wasn't going to remove them without serious thought about the alternatives. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-fs" in the body of the message