Date: Sun, 19 Sep 1999 18:04:07 -0700 (PDT) From: Julian Elischer <julian@whistle.com> To: Peter Wemm <peter@netplex.com.au> Cc: mjacob@feral.com, 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: <Pine.BSF.4.05.9909191803310.19879-100000@home.elischer.org> In-Reply-To: <19990920005539.1AABE1CA7@overcee.netplex.com.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 20 Sep 1999, Peter Wemm wrote: > 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. but they don't do it with a whole separate class of devices as far as I know. > > 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?Pine.BSF.4.05.9909191803310.19879-100000>