From owner-freebsd-hackers  Thu Jun 12 18:13:47 1997
Return-Path: <owner-hackers>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id SAA01821
          for hackers-outgoing; Thu, 12 Jun 1997 18:13:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ohm.ingsala.unal.edu.co ([168.176.15.18])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id SAA01811
          for <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>; Thu, 12 Jun 1997 18:13:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from unalmodem.usc.unal.edu.co (unalmodem03.usc.unal.edu.co [168.176.3.33])
	by ohm.ingsala.unal.edu.co (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id UAA10447;
	Thu, 12 Jun 1997 20:14:26 -0500 (COT)
Message-ID: <33A0B8C4.568A@fps.biblos.unal.edu.co>
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 1997 20:04:37 -0700
From: "Pedro F. Giffuni" <pgiffuni@fps.biblos.unal.edu.co>
Organization: Universidad Nacional de Colombia
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win16; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org>
CC: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: user-mode nfs daemon
References: <199706121727.KAA09204@phaeton.artisoft.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

Terry Lambert wrote:
> 
...
> 
> As a sidebar, I was able to get the compression stacking layer
> to work without problems, after I corrected the interfaces on
> my own machine, with the help of direct email exchanges with
> John Heidemann (my corrections are a lot more radical than the
> minor layering patches I have posted, which are minimalist ways
> of achieving some of the same ends).
> 

Well some of us are still waiting for your CVS branch to start (as was
being discussed sometime ago), but I guess it easier to find Marylin
Manson in Mass *with the Pope* :).

	Pedro.

> The 4.4BSD-Lite2 release was an additional pain in the ass, in
> that it compounded the kludges in a number of places.  Unfortunately,
> I could not contribute 4.4BSD-Lite fixes back to CSRG directly for
> inclusion in Lite2, as I did not have the requisite SVR4 license to
> get a working 4.4BSD-Heavy machine running, and FreeBSD relative
> patches were not very practical for them.
> 
> So my guess is that if you made your VFS layer in your FreeBSD
> kernel look like John Heidemann's thesis obviously intended it
> to look, you'd probably be successful; but don't expect to be
> able to do this within the existing framework of FreeBSD.
> 
>                                         Regards,
>                                         Terry Lambert
>                                         terry@lambert.org
> ---
> Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present
> or previous employers.