From owner-freebsd-hackers Wed Jul 1 09:58:57 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA12252 for freebsd-hackers-outgoing; Wed, 1 Jul 1998 09:58:57 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from lor.watermarkgroup.com (lor.watermarkgroup.com [207.202.73.33]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id JAA12236; Wed, 1 Jul 1998 09:58:50 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from luoqi@watermarkgroup.com) Received: (from luoqi@localhost) by lor.watermarkgroup.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA15694; Wed, 1 Jul 1998 12:58:21 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from luoqi) Date: Wed, 1 Jul 1998 12:58:21 -0400 (EDT) From: Luoqi Chen Message-Id: <199807011658.MAA15694@lor.watermarkgroup.com> To: thorpej@nas.nasa.gov, tlambert@primenet.com Subject: Re: Unsupport calls Cc: freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, mkn@emailbox.hdtv.lucent.com Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > On Tue, 30 Jun 1998 23:04:07 +0000 (GMT) > Terry Lambert wrote: > > > Not really. The distinction drawn between user data and metadata is > > useless in the face of a technology like soft updates. > > ...and not only does POSIX not define softupdates, but who says you're > using a UFS-like file system, anyhow? But who says you can't apply soft updates technology to other file systems :) > > This is just another case of POSIX adding insult to injury, to no > > real benefit for anyone. > > ...and this insults you how? I think you're taking it way too seriously :-) > > Jason R. Thorpe thorpej@nas.nasa.gov > NASA Ames Research Center Home: +1 408 866 1912 > NAS: M/S 258-5 Work: +1 650 604 0935 > Moffett Field, CA 94035 Pager: +1 650 428 6939 -lq To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message