Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 00:21:55 +0100 (BST) From: Doug Rabson <dfr@nlsystems.com> To: Alexander Viro <viro@math.psu.edu> Cc: Bill Sommerfeld <sommerfeld@orchard.arlington.ma.us>, Francois-Rene Rideau <fare@tunes.org>, Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@vger.rutgers.edu>, FreeBSD Hackers <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>, NetBSD Kernel <tech-kern@netbsd.org> Subject: Re: Improving the Unix API Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.05.9906280017510.80685-100000@herring.nlsystems.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.10.9906271322421.24019-100000@weyl.math.psu.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 27 Jun 1999, Alexander Viro wrote: > > > On Sun, 27 Jun 1999, Doug Rabson wrote: > > > This looks viable as long as you don't use small integers to represent > > FL_UFS etc. Having a single header defining constants for all filesystems > > Erm... sizeof(int)==4. I doubt that you will need more. > > > just doesn't scale at all. > Sure. If you don't need fs-specific stuff - <sys/stat.h> and there > you go. If you need some particular fs - <sys/stat.h> and <sys/foo_fs.h> I'm talking about the concept of a header file containing something like: #define FL_VFS 0 #define FL_FOOFS 1 #define FD_BARFS 2 ... not being scalable. Do you have a complete list of filesystem types? Are you prepared to act as an Assigned Number authority for that list. For this kind of problem, strings are a damn sight easier to manage in the long term. > > > You still want a clearly defined set of FS independant flags so that the > > application doesn't need to care what filesystem it is sitting on. > > And that's exactly the reason for FL_VFS vs. FL_FOOFS separation - > some applications should be able to talk with the filesystem in the > filesystem's terms *and* be sure that they will not mess with another fs; > the rest shouldn't care for fs differences at all (aside of "did the > sucker set the bits I wanted?" that you already have for SUID/SGID/sticky). > > I don't think that porting it to 4.4 will be difficult - all you > need is a way to tell VOP_SETATTR what level are you talking to (most > likely the same way as on the our side - add a field to the structure and > let the methods scratch their heads). I'm going to do the Linux variant > and see how it will work. If somebody wants to do it with *BSD - fine, it > shouldn't be a problem. I'm sure the api would be easy to port. I wouldn't accept any api for FreeBSD which involved assigning numbers to filesystem types. It was too painful to rid it of the last set of numbers from the old mount(2) call. -- Doug Rabson Mail: dfr@nlsystems.com Nonlinear Systems Ltd. Phone: +44 181 442 9037 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.05.9906280017510.80685-100000>