From owner-freebsd-hackers  Wed Apr 18 11:45:19 2001
Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (critter.freebsd.dk [212.242.86.163])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id DEE4D37B422; Wed, 18 Apr 2001 11:45:15 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from phk@critter.freebsd.dk)
Received: from critter (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by critter.freebsd.dk (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id f3IIj4U42009;
	Wed, 18 Apr 2001 20:45:04 +0200 (CEST)
	(envelope-from phk@critter.freebsd.dk)
To: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org>
Cc: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.ORG>,
	Kirk McKusick <mckusick@mckusick.com>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@conectiva.com.br>, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG,
	Matt Dillon <dillon@earth.backplane.com>, David Xu <bsddiy@21cn.com>
Subject: Re: vm balance 
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 18 Apr 2001 10:24:26 PDT."
             <3ADDCDCA.86D1B3BE@elischer.org> 
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 20:45:04 +0200
Message-ID: <42007.987619504@critter>
From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.freebsd.dk>
Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG

In message <3ADDCDCA.86D1B3BE@elischer.org>, Julian Elischer writes:

>If we merged vnodes and vm objects,
>then if devices were not vnodes, how would you represent
>a vm area that maps a device?

You would use a VM object of course, but it would be a special
kind of VM object, just like today...

--
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.

To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message