From owner-freebsd-hackers Fri Apr 30 12: 0:10 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mailhub.psn.ie (mailhub.psn.ie [194.106.150.254]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 65DAD155D9; Fri, 30 Apr 1999 12:00:03 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from ad@netbsd.org) Received: from vmunix.psn.ie ([194.106.150.252]) by mailhub.psn.ie with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #3) id 10dI2k-000KVh-00; Fri, 30 Apr 1999 19:29:46 +0100 Received: from localhost.psn.ie ([127.0.0.1] helo=localhost) by vmunix.psn.ie with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #1) id 10dI1z-00006R-00; Fri, 30 Apr 1999 19:28:59 +0100 Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1999 19:28:59 +0100 (IST) From: Andy Doran X-Sender: ad@vmunix.psn.ie To: Eivind Eklund Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Some ideas on the evolution of -CURRENT In-Reply-To: <19990430190706.A11334@bitbox.follo.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Fri, 30 Apr 1999, Eivind Eklund wrote: [About LFS] > even with UVM they haven't gone to a fully merged VM/buffer cache. I You're right, NetBSD doesn't have merged VM/buffer cache just yet. A substantial number of bugs were squashed in the LFS code. Getting diffs of -current LFS code against older RCS versions in the NetBSD tree would probably be useful to see the changes. The person to talk to about this AFAIR, is perseant@NetBSD.org (although don't hold me to this). > NetBSDs work in this area is unlikely to be useful, I think - AFAIK, It would be a shame to end up with two quite different implementations. Andy. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message