Date: Sat, 21 Mar 2009 12:20:04 +0100 From: Ivan Voras <ivoras@freebsd.org> To: =?UTF-8?Q?Marius_N=C3=BCnnerich?= <marius@nuenneri.ch> Cc: freebsd-geom@freebsd.org Subject: Re: RFC: adding 'proxy' nodes to provider ports (with patch) Message-ID: <9bbcef730903210420l132c5287yb0a474901424b7da@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <b649e5e0903201757s7189890as69ba839042dea83c@mail.gmail.com> References: <20090319081936.GA32750@onelab2.iet.unipi.it> <b649e5e0903190441m2d511107qd95cb3cd566b11f7@mail.gmail.com> <20090319130137.GB40489__3492.42561865157$1237467521$gmane$org@onelab2.iet.unipi.it> <gq1975$p1k$1@ger.gmane.org> <b649e5e0903201757s7189890as69ba839042dea83c@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
2009/3/21 Marius N=C3=BCnnerich <marius@nuenneri.ch>: > Take a look at geom_nop, it doesn't taste. It is like a proxy already > as far as I can see. I don't know what to do about the naming though. Maybe I expressed it wrongly - what I meant to say is that existing "normal" GEOM classes, even if they are proxy-like in nature (like GELI) cannot simply "be used" as a proxy in this context.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?9bbcef730903210420l132c5287yb0a474901424b7da>