Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1999 08:55:39 +0800 From: Peter Wemm <peter@netplex.com.au> To: mjacob@feral.com Cc: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.freebsd.dk>, Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com>, dg@root.com, Greg Lehey <grog@lemis.com>, 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) Message-ID: <19990920005539.1AABE1CA7@overcee.netplex.com.au> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 19 Sep 1999 13:47:31 MST." <Pine.BSF.4.05.9909191332050.42316-100000@semuta.feral.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Matthew Jacob wrote:
>
>
> > In message <Pine.BSF.4.05.9909191318570.42254-100000@semuta.feral.com>, Mat
thew
> > Jacob writes:
> >
> > >> Anyway, David (and Kirk through him) has already said their piece, and
> > >> still nobody has named an actual application which depends on bdevs
> > >> soo...
> > >
> > >Isn't that reasoning in reverse? Wouldn't be fairer to state "the problems
> > >that we have in the rest of the system are so large because we allow block
> > >device access to user programs that we must kill off such access?".
> >
> > In an ideal world yes. I think the fully expanded version sounds like
> > this:
> >
> > "
> > Since having two kinds of access to the device confuses people
> > used to Linux
>
> So to market differentiate FreeBSD from Linux (which is block device only,
> finally thinking about adding raw) we go for raw-only? :-)
.. and Linux has an implementation of both now.
Cheers,
-Peter
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19990920005539.1AABE1CA7>