From owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Mar 10 23:17:20 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cvs-all@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C13E16A4CE; Wed, 10 Mar 2004 23:17:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (critter.freebsd.dk [212.242.86.163]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B64F43D41; Wed, 10 Mar 2004 23:17:19 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from phk@phk.freebsd.dk) Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by critter.freebsd.dk (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i2B7HHqj048494; Thu, 11 Mar 2004 08:17:17 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from phk@phk.freebsd.dk) To: Colin Percival From: "Poul-Henning Kamp" In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 11 Mar 2004 06:41:06 GMT." <6.0.1.1.1.20040311063721.03e220b8@imap.sfu.ca> Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 08:17:17 +0100 Message-ID: <48493.1078989437@critter.freebsd.dk> cc: cvs-src@FreeBSD.org cc: src-committers@FreeBSD.org cc: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/sys mdioctl.h src/sys/dev/md md.c src/sbin/mdconfig mdconfig.8 mdconfig.c X-BeenThere: cvs-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: CVS commit messages for the entire tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 07:17:20 -0000 In message <6.0.1.1.1.20040311063721.03e220b8@imap.sfu.ca>, Colin Percival writ es: >At 06:35 11/03/2004, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: >>In message <6.0.1.1.1.20040311062306.03f9ade0@imap.sfu.ca>, Colin Percival >>writ >>es: >> > >> > Is it really necessary for vnode-backed memory disks to be >> >accessed through the filesystem? Why can't md(4) hijack the >> >disk blocks which constitute the file (telling the filesystem >> >not to touch them, of course) and translate I/O operations >> >directly into I/O on the underlying device? >> > >> >>That would be a really complex solution to a problem which should not >>exist in the first place :-) > > Well... yes, but it *would* make sure that data didn't get passed >back up to the filesystem layer. And it would probably be faster, >which is why I thought of it. This is all true, but as I said, IMO the benefits does not outweigh the added complexity. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.