From owner-freebsd-fs Sun Dec 19 0:57:15 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (critter.freebsd.dk [212.242.40.131]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C584151EF for ; Sun, 19 Dec 1999 00:57:13 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from phk@critter.freebsd.dk) Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by critter.freebsd.dk (8.9.3/8.9.2) with ESMTP id JAA05385; Sun, 19 Dec 1999 09:56:30 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from phk@critter.freebsd.dk) To: Terry Lambert Cc: peter@netplex.com.au (Peter Wemm), robert+freebsd@cyrus.watson.org, freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Request for objections: extended attribute and ACL interfaces In-reply-to: Your message of "Sat, 18 Dec 1999 20:05:04 GMT." <199912182005.NAA01764@usr08.primenet.com> Date: Sun, 19 Dec 1999 09:56:30 +0100 Message-ID: <5383.945593790@critter.freebsd.dk> From: Poul-Henning Kamp Sender: owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org In message <199912182005.NAA01764@usr08.primenet.com>, Terry Lambert writes: >Peter, it should work without any handlers being present. At the >FreeBSDCon, Kirk agreed that the vfs_default.c stuff damaged the >abstraction between UFS and FFS layers, which are supposed to be >seperated as block management policy and directory hierarchy policy >layers. Ask Matt Dillon or Poul-Henning. Terry, the interface between UFS and FFS isn't a vnode interface, it is an *I*node interface. It shouldn't use VOPs at all. -- Poul-Henning Kamp FreeBSD coreteam member phk@FreeBSD.ORG "Real hackers run -current on their laptop." FreeBSD -- It will take a long time before progress goes too far! To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-fs" in the body of the message