From owner-freebsd-hackers Mon Jan 4 20:38:12 1999 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA25951 for freebsd-hackers-outgoing; Mon, 4 Jan 1999 20:38:12 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from iquest3.iquest.net (iquest3.iquest.net [209.43.20.203]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id UAA25946 for ; Mon, 4 Jan 1999 20:38:10 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from toor@y.dyson.net) Received: (qmail 4540 invoked from network); 5 Jan 1999 04:37:42 -0000 Received: from dyson.iquest.net (HELO y.dyson.net) (198.70.144.127) by iquest3.iquest.net with SMTP; 5 Jan 1999 04:37:42 -0000 Received: (from root@localhost) by y.dyson.net (8.9.1/8.9.1) id XAA26494; Mon, 4 Jan 1999 23:37:41 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199901050437.XAA26494@y.dyson.net> Subject: Re: questions/problems with vm_fault() in Stable In-Reply-To: <199901050338.UAA03450@usr05.primenet.com> from Terry Lambert at "Jan 5, 99 03:38:47 am" To: tlambert@primenet.com (Terry Lambert) Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1999 23:37:41 -0500 (EST) Cc: dyson@iquest.net, pfgiffun@bachue.usc.unal.edu.co, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG From: "John S. Dyson" Reply-To: dyson@iquest.net X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL38 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Terry Lambert said: > > The biggest problem I had was the thing was moving too fast for me > to be able to track it adequately. That was probably just me (or > maybe a lack of documentation describing the thing... ;-)). > Yep, it seems that things are now happening more slowly, but more coherently. When I was working on it, it was either a case of doing the work, or doing the docs. Things are quite stable now, and whomever has the time would possibly have a chance of tracking progress. > > > Also, the FreeBSD VFS/VM code already supports the ability to > > have non-mapped buffers (and has for 2years.) There is alot in there that > > might make the complexity look excessive, but that is only because there > > are features in there that are almost ready to go. > > Actually, I think some of the tighness of VM system integration into > the VFS code is a mistake. > I think that since the amount of interaction needed is now understood, a rearchitecting of the code would valuable. IMO, the VFS and VM code need to be bound in very intimate ways, and most seperation between the two is artificial. My guess is that it is probable that the efforts had historically been split between VFS and VM, and the interfaces were defined without both parties understanding the needs. Since that is understood now, things should be reworked. -- John | Never try to teach a pig to sing, dyson@iquest.net | it makes one look stupid jdyson@nc.com | and it irritates the pig. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message