From owner-freebsd-current Mon Sep 11 10:37:29 1995 Return-Path: current-owner Received: (from majordom@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) id KAA27046 for current-outgoing; Mon, 11 Sep 1995 10:37:29 -0700 Received: from phaeton.artisoft.com (phaeton.Artisoft.COM [198.17.250.211]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) with ESMTP id KAA27040 ; Mon, 11 Sep 1995 10:37:24 -0700 Received: (from terry@localhost) by phaeton.artisoft.com (8.6.11/8.6.9) id KAA18629; Mon, 11 Sep 1995 10:30:14 -0700 From: Terry Lambert Message-Id: <199509111730.KAA18629@phaeton.artisoft.com> Subject: Re: Is nullfs broken in -current? To: dyson@freefall.freebsd.org (John Dyson) Date: Mon, 11 Sep 1995 10:30:14 -0700 (MST) Cc: jkh@time.cdrom.com, current@freefall.freebsd.org In-Reply-To: <199509110744.AAA12443@freefall.freebsd.org> from "John Dyson" at Sep 11, 95 00:44:26 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 1738 Sender: current-owner@FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > All of the layered filesystem stuff is slated to be fixed for 2.2. I am > too busy right now to even look at it right now because of that irritating > Sig-11 problem. The VFS layering needs work (and even in the original > 4.4Lite stuff was "not good".) The getpage/putpage stuff is the first > step in the fixes. (Other things include proper NFS locking -- right now > NFS doesn't VOP_LOCK at all!!!) I agree that the layering is quite broken. Most of the code that came from the BSD 4.4Lite and Lite2 distributions and implements the file system framework itself is bad. In general, the implementation is one that assumes static linking while the architecture is one that assumes dynamic. Basically, there should not be a static dependence on the size of the function tables that is caused by the first initialization setting the table size rather than a sizeof operation on a NULL-filled table. All file systems, static or otherwise, should use the same registration procedure. The NFS locking is currently being worked on. The last report I heard was that it was to the point of being able to take and ignore all requests, such that Sun machines wuit their bitching. I've rolled some additional fixes for handle-to-open-file-instance conversion using a callback registration mechanism only when NFS is loaded. The getpage/putpage stuff doesn't seem to be a particularly profound change for anything but the page management, which is as it should be, considering the file system framework still wants to be able to share the majority of code between FreeBSD/NetBSD/Other systems. Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.