From owner-freebsd-fs Fri Jan 21 10:18: 8 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Received: from mail4.aracnet.com (mail4.aracnet.com [216.99.193.36]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA511154DB for ; Fri, 21 Jan 2000 10:18:00 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from beattie@aracnet.com) Received: from shell1.aracnet.com (IDENT:root@shell1.aracnet.com [216.99.193.21]) by mail4.aracnet.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA03560 for ; Fri, 21 Jan 2000 10:18:05 -0800 Received: from localhost by shell1.aracnet.com (8.9.3) id KAA29529; Fri, 21 Jan 2000 10:19:36 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: shell1.aracnet.com: beattie owned process doing -bs Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 10:19:36 -0800 (PST) From: Brian Beattie To: fs@freebsd.org Subject: UDF, userfs Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org I have made a couple of posts to hackers, that probably should have gone here to fs. I and thinking about implementing a UDF filesystem. The plan I am considering, is to implement a "userfs" to allow me to do most of the work in a user process. I have been thinking about the userfs implementation. I will need some way for the user process to talk the backend of the userfs kernel code. The two ways I have thought of are I/O,, probably ioctl's or a new system call. I assume that it is possible, using a module to add an entry to the syscall table, but I lean more towards a new pseudo device to hang the ioctl's off of. I would be ineterested in any comments. I would also like to hear from anybody who has thought about a userfs implementation for FreeBSD. Brian Beattie | The only problem with beattie@aracnet.com | winning the rat race ... www.aracnet.com/~beattie | in the end you're still a rat To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-fs" in the body of the message