From owner-freebsd-current Sat Oct 28 13:41:20 1995 Return-Path: owner-current Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) id NAA22446 for current-outgoing; Sat, 28 Oct 1995 13:41:20 -0700 Received: from phaeton.artisoft.com (phaeton.Artisoft.COM [198.17.250.211]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) with ESMTP id NAA22423 for ; Sat, 28 Oct 1995 13:41:14 -0700 Received: (from terry@localhost) by phaeton.artisoft.com (8.6.11/8.6.9) id NAA02588; Sat, 28 Oct 1995 13:30:33 -0700 From: Terry Lambert Message-Id: <199510282030.NAA02588@phaeton.artisoft.com> Subject: Re: fs layering pathces doesn't work. To: davidg@root.com Date: Sat, 28 Oct 1995 13:30:32 -0700 (MST) Cc: dufault@hda.com, terry@lambert.org, phk@freefall.freebsd.org, current@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: <199510281139.EAA00136@corbin.Root.COM> from "David Greenman" at Oct 28, 95 04:39:39 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 2169 Sender: owner-current@freebsd.org Precedence: bulk > > >> > >> There, dammit. > >> > >> Man, it is impossible to do diffs against -current! > >> > >> > >> The latest full patches which work are now in: > >> > >> freefall.cdrom.com:~terry/fs_layer_patch.gz > >> > >> These should fix all the problems in the ancillary file > >> systems and in the mkdir and link calls (your panic was > >> in mkdir). > > > >While it is still working why don't you get commit privs and commit them > >to -current? > > Because several people, me included, object to giving him commit privs. News to me; I've never asked. At first it would have been a bad idea because of my Novell connection, but later it never occurred to me that it would be interesting to tie myself to FreeBSD vs. NetBSD. I am an advocate of BSD, period. Having never asked, I didn't know there were personal problems. Go figure. > Furthermore, the changes haven't yet been reviewed by the people working on > the filesystem layering. Who would that be? Whoever they are, if I could find out what their future plans are, it could save me some work in cleaning up the 4.4BSD hacks to get the Heidemann code in in the first place. I'm sure we are all interested in the implementation matching the design document so that the original design goals can, infact, be met instead of being compromised (as they are in the 4.4 code). Currently, there is still layering manipulation which quite broken that prevents subclassing file systems. Specifically, the address reference for the per op descriptors should be replaces with a token and the instance registration mechanism needs to convert the token to the op descriptors in place. Or hasn't anyone (besides me) looked at the 4.4BSD and NetBSD unionfs (which works), and the original Ficus papers? I realize that my current patch is a big one, but I've given my full rationale, and no one objected to it. If I could ever get over chasing -current's tail for lack of a decent cvs diff/cvs merge facility that can be used remotely, it might even apply cleanly. Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.