Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 16:06:44 -0700 From: Kirk McKusick <mckusick@McKusick.COM> To: Karl Denninger <karl@mcs.net> Cc: Ollivier Robert <roberto@keltia.freenix.fr>, julian@whistle.com, Luoqi Chen <luoqi@watermarkgroup.com>, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why Soft Updates are not a mount option Message-ID: <199805112306.QAA28973@flamingo.McKusick.COM> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 11 May 1998 19:36:45 CDT." <19980511193645.56745@mcs.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 19:36:45 -0500
From: Karl Denninger <karl@mcs.net>
To: Kirk McKusick <mckusick@McKusick.COM>
Cc: Ollivier Robert <roberto@keltia.freenix.fr>, julian@whistle.com,
Luoqi Chen <luoqi@watermarkgroup.com>, current@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Why Soft Updates are not a mount option
In-Reply-To: <199805112206.PAA28767@flamingo.McKusick.COM>;
from Kirk McKusick on Mon, May 11, 1998 at 03:06:41PM -0700
On Mon, May 11, 1998 at 03:06:41PM -0700, Kirk McKusick wrote:
> Soft Updates are set in the superblock with tunefs for several reasons:
>
> 1) This is an interim measure during the testing phase of soft updates.
> In the long run, they will always be used as the normal course of
> events. I do not want legacy mount options lying around.
Uh, how do you do that with the current licensing system? (ie: not everyone
can play)
...
I eventually plan to make the code freely redistributable. The current
licensing scheme is in place to give me time to sell the code to one or
more of the big Unix vendors.
~Kirk
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199805112306.QAA28973>