From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Sep 4 14:34:37 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B04316A4BF; Thu, 4 Sep 2003 14:34:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from duke.cs.duke.edu (duke.cs.duke.edu [152.3.140.1]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EAB4643F3F; Thu, 4 Sep 2003 14:34:35 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from gallatin@cs.duke.edu) Received: from grasshopper.cs.duke.edu (grasshopper.cs.duke.edu [152.3.145.30]) by duke.cs.duke.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h84LYZJV009331 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO); Thu, 4 Sep 2003 17:34:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from gallatin@localhost) by grasshopper.cs.duke.edu (8.11.6/8.9.1) id h84LYUu34134; Thu, 4 Sep 2003 17:34:30 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from gallatin@cs.duke.edu) From: Andrew Gallatin MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <16215.45030.31344.503298@grasshopper.cs.duke.edu> To: Poul-Henning Kamp In-Reply-To: <1031.1062663304@critter.freebsd.dk> References: <1031.1062663304@critter.freebsd.dk> X-Mailer: VM 6.75 under 21.1 (patch 12) "Channel Islands" XEmacs Lucid cc: arch@freebsd.org cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: DISCUSSION: /dev/fd%d.%d and /dev/{a}cd%d[ac] to be discontinued ? X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2003 21:34:37 -0000 X-Original-Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2003 17:34:30 -0400 (EDT) X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2003 21:34:37 -0000 Poul-Henning Kamp writes: > > As soon as these uses of cloning code has been removed, I will move > the floppy and CD drivers under GEOM, paving the way for the > significant changes to the buf/VM system which some of you have > already heard rumours about. (more will emerge after BSDcon'03) > > And now comes the bit which I would like to offer for discussion: > > Should we do this for 5.2 instead ? > I think this sounds good. Can you give a hint as to what you mean by the significant buf/VM system changes? Are you talking about removing the vnode detour for drivers and giving drivers who want it access to the struct file? Drew