From owner-freebsd-current Thu Apr 3 17:24:14 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id RAA03459 for current-outgoing; Thu, 3 Apr 1997 17:24:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from genesis.atrad.adelaide.edu.au (genesis.atrad.adelaide.edu.au [129.127.96.120]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id RAA03452 for ; Thu, 3 Apr 1997 17:24:10 -0800 (PST) Received: (from msmith@localhost) by genesis.atrad.adelaide.edu.au (8.8.5/8.7.3) id KAA16028; Fri, 4 Apr 1997 10:52:48 +0930 (CST) From: Michael Smith Message-Id: <199704040122.KAA16028@genesis.atrad.adelaide.edu.au> Subject: Re: DISCUSS: system open file table In-Reply-To: <199704032328.QAA17735@phaeton.artisoft.com> from Terry Lambert at "Apr 3, 97 04:28:39 pm" To: terry@lambert.org (Terry Lambert) Date: Fri, 4 Apr 1997 10:52:48 +0930 (CST) Cc: current@freebsd.org X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL28 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-current@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk Terry Lambert stands accused of saying: > > I would like to suggest functionally seperating process descriptor > management from system open file table management. > > The purpose of this seperation would be to provide for the > possibility of entries in the system open file table which do > not exist in a per process open file table anywhere. One could suggest that, as an alternative, one treated the kernel as a process (or possibly create another kernel process which exists solely to own files on the kernel's behalf). I make no judgement as to whether this is a "better" approach. -- ]] Mike Smith, Software Engineer msmith@gsoft.com.au [[ ]] Genesis Software genesis@gsoft.com.au [[ ]] High-speed data acquisition and (GSM mobile) 0411-222-496 [[ ]] realtime instrument control. (ph) +61-8-8267-3493 [[ ]] Unix hardware collector. "Where are your PEZ?" The Tick [[