From owner-freebsd-hackers Tue Jun 15 6:31:52 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from cs.rpi.edu (mumble.cs.rpi.edu [128.213.8.16]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01D3B14C2D for ; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 06:31:47 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from crossd@cs.rpi.edu) Received: from cs.rpi.edu (monica.cs.rpi.edu [128.213.7.2]) by cs.rpi.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA29864; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 09:31:23 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199906151331.JAA29864@cs.rpi.edu> To: Dag-Erling Smorgrav Cc: "David E. Cross" , freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, crossd@cs.rpi.edu Subject: Re: umapfs... In-Reply-To: Message from Dag-Erling Smorgrav of "15 Jun 1999 15:26:03 +0200." Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 09:31:23 -0400 From: "David E. Cross" Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG >> I have been looking at the code for UMAPfs... I am trying to understand >> conceptually why it is so unstable... > >You're looking in the wrong place. It's unstable because of >infrastructure problems which require fairly substantial amounts of >work to correct. > >DES I guess that is what I am asking... What is different between the following: int foo(void){ return 0; } and int foo_prime(void) { return foo(); } That is my interpretation of the code. It would *seem* to just pass the call off to the next FS layer as if the VFS system of the kernel had done it directly.... Conceptually I must be missing something. -- David Cross | email: crossd@cs.rpi.edu Systems Administrator/Research Programmer | Web: http://www.cs.rpi.edu/~crossd Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, | Ph: 518.276.2860 Department of Computer Science | Fax: 518.276.4033 I speak only for myself. | WinNT:Linux::Linux:FreeBSD To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message