From owner-cvs-all Sun Sep 19 12:21:58 1999 Delivered-To: cvs-all@freebsd.org Received: from proxy4.ba.best.com (proxy4.ba.best.com [206.184.139.15]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B0D2015616; Sun, 19 Sep 1999 12:21:55 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dillon@apollo.backplane.com) Received: from apollo.backplane.com ([209.157.86.2]) by proxy4.ba.best.com (8.9.3/8.9.2/best.out) with ESMTP id MAA01646; Sun, 19 Sep 1999 12:20:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from dillon@localhost) by apollo.backplane.com (8.9.3/8.9.1) id MAA73966; Sun, 19 Sep 1999 12:20:06 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dillon) Date: Sun, 19 Sep 1999 12:20:06 -0700 (PDT) From: Matthew Dillon Message-Id: <199909191920.MAA73966@apollo.backplane.com> To: Poul-Henning Kamp Cc: dg@root.com, Greg Lehey , cvs-committers@FreeBSD.ORG, cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: User block device access (was: cvs commit: src/sys/miscfs/specfs spec_vnops.c src/sys/sys vnode.h src/sys/kern vfs_subr.c) References: <17318.937766744@critter.freebsd.dk> Sender: owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk :Matt, remember the discussion here is about "If we only retain :one of the interfaces, which should it be then ?" : :If we retain bdevs, Oracle and similar apps, which are much more :common than the potential but practically non-existent apps which :rely on bdev caching, would be hit hard by this overhead. : :-- :Poul-Henning Kamp FreeBSD coreteam member :phk@FreeBSD.ORG "Real hackers run -current on their laptop." You are the one arguing to have just one interface, Poul, not me. I think both are useful. -Matt Matthew Dillon To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message