From owner-freebsd-current  Tue Sep 10 11:26:39 1996
Return-Path: owner-current
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id LAA03951
          for current-outgoing; Tue, 10 Sep 1996 11:26:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from root.com (implode.root.com [198.145.90.17])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id LAA03940
          for <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>; Tue, 10 Sep 1996 11:26:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by root.com (8.7.5/8.6.5) with SMTP id LAA19216; Tue, 10 Sep 1996 11:25:22 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <199609101825.LAA19216@root.com>
X-Authentication-Warning: implode.root.com: Host localhost [127.0.0.1] didn't use HELO protocol
To: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org>
cc: jkh@time.cdrom.com (Jordan K. Hubbard), henrich@crh.cl.msu.edu,
        freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Grrr. NFS to a Sun (Slowaris 5.5.1) 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 10 Sep 1996 11:05:10 PDT."
             <199609101805.LAA03121@phaeton.artisoft.com> 
From: David Greenman <dg@root.com>
Reply-To: dg@root.com
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 11:25:22 -0700
Sender: owner-current@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

>> > What I dont understand is if no one is working on NFS, how is it going
>> > downhill?   I mean, cant we just revert back to the NFS that was in 0612, it
>> > seemed to work very well.
>> 
>> I think it's more a question of dependencies.  You don't need to
>> change *anything* in the NFS code to make it break, after all, there
>> being so many other things it depends on which can change.
>
>GHAH.
>
>It is time to once and for frigging all deine a VFS bottom end for
>interfacing to the system.
>
>I suggest that the interfaces should be macrotized, the expected
>behaviour documented, and then any VM changes that take place must
>provide macrotized equivalents.
>
>We can then version the interfaces, as necessary, seperately from
>versioning the VM and other fast moving systems, and we can include
>"better" interfaces for a given VM when we are permitted to make
>cross-FS changes (presumably, this will one day be permitted after
>the Lite2 integration that NetBSD and OpenBSD completed shortly
>after the Lite2 release, more than a year ago).

   Cough, sputter... Yes, that would all be nice, but I'd be happy if we'd
just get some sort of versioning working for VFS LKMs.

-DG

David Greenman
Core-team/Principal Architect, The FreeBSD Project