From owner-freebsd-current  Thu Dec 14 17:12:25 1995
Return-Path: owner-current
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id RAA08116
          for current-outgoing; Thu, 14 Dec 1995 17:12:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from Root.COM (implode.Root.COM [198.145.90.17])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id RAA08097
          for <current@freebsd.org>; Thu, 14 Dec 1995 17:12:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from corbin.Root.COM (corbin [198.145.90.50]) by Root.COM (8.6.12/8.6.5) with ESMTP id RAA02457; Thu, 14 Dec 1995 17:12:15 -0800
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by corbin.Root.COM (8.6.12/8.6.5) with SMTP id RAA00156; Thu, 14 Dec 1995 17:12:16 -0800
Message-Id: <199512150112.RAA00156@corbin.Root.COM>
To: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org>
cc: current@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: VOP_READIR revisited 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 13 Dec 95 20:33:21 MST."
             <199512140333.UAA00876@phaeton.artisoft.com> 
From: David Greenman <davidg@Root.COM>
Reply-To: davidg@Root.COM
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 17:12:15 -0800
Sender: owner-current@freebsd.org
Precedence: bulk

>So you basically think passing around a buffer pointer instead of a
>buffer, and converting it in the copyout case is a more of a kludge
>than copying to a local buffer and maintaining malloc'ed arrays of
>cookies at every stacked FS layer, the syscall, and NFS server
>export code.
>
>I must be missing something that is obvious to you.  Please
>enlighten us.

   No, basically I think adding another VOP call significantly complicates
the code both in its use and understanding of function...not to mention
performance.

-DG