Date: Tue, 01 May 2001 02:51:50 -0700 From: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> To: Matt Dillon <dillon@earth.backplane.com> Cc: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.freebsd.dk>, Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org>, Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.ORG>, Kirk McKusick <mckusick@mckusick.com>, Rik van Riel <riel@conectiva.com.br>, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, David Xu <bsddiy@21cn.com> Subject: Re: Proposed struct file (was Re: vm balance) Message-ID: <3AEE8736.17582DA3@mindspring.com> References: <42007.987619504@critter> <200104181903.f3IJ3Bw40186@earth.backplane.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Matt Dillon wrote: > > This is all preliminary. The question is whether we can > cover enough bases for this to be viable. > > Here is a proposed struct file. Make f_data opaque (or > more opaque), add f_object, extend fileops (see next > structure), Added f_vopflags to indicate the presence > of a vnode in f_data, allowing extended filesystem ops > (e.g. rename, remove, fchown, etc etc etc). 1) struct fileops is evil; adding to it contributes to its inherent evil-ness. 2) The new structure is too large. 3) The old structure is too large; I have a need for 1,000,000 open files for a particular application, and I'm not willing to give up that much memory. -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3AEE8736.17582DA3>