From owner-freebsd-hackers Tue Jun 23 18:56:37 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA27079 for freebsd-hackers-outgoing; Tue, 23 Jun 1998 18:56:37 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from orkan.canonware.com (canonware.com [206.184.206.112]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id SAA27066 for ; Tue, 23 Jun 1998 18:56:30 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jasone@canonware.com) Received: from localhost (jasone@localhost) by orkan.canonware.com (8.8.8/8.8.7) with SMTP id SAA23252 for ; Tue, 23 Jun 1998 18:57:08 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jasone@canonware.com) Date: Tue, 23 Jun 1998 18:57:07 -0700 (PDT) From: Jason Evans To: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Heads up: block devices to disappear! In-Reply-To: <199806240130.SAA06590@kithrup.com> 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 Tue, 23 Jun 1998, Sean Eric Fagan wrote: > In article <315.898610601.1.kithrup.freebsd.hackers@critter.freebsd.dk> you write: > >Unless compelling evidence to the contrary is presented, I will remove > >blockdevices as a concept from FreeBSD RSN. > > > >In the future all devices will be character devices, and mounts will > >happen using these as well. > > Wow, I am sitting here, remembering arguments by certain freebsd core members > a couple of years ago about how linux' lack of block devices was a > defficiency. > > Tell me, how am I supposed to do direct, un-cached accesses? > > How about all the auxillary programs, some of which are in ports, which expect > to be able to use block devices -- and do stats to check on it? > > This is another not-so-good idea. Better than the last one, really, but still > not a very good idea. Whoa, I'm confused now. Sean, you appear to be saying that by removing block devices from FreeBSD, it is no longer possible to do direct, un-cached (i.e. raw) accesses. How is this the case? My understanding is that un-cached accesses are done through character devices, which is what we're keeping, rather than chucking. If I'm paraphrasing correctly, and what you say is true, then I strongly disagree with removing the block devices, though it seems unlikely that I'm understanding this correctly. Jason Jason Evans Email: [jasone@canonware.com] Web: [http://www.canonware.com/~jasone] Home phone: [(650) 856-8204] Work phone: [(408) 774-8007] Quote: ["Invention is 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration" - Thomas Edison] To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message