Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Mon, 15 Jun 1998 08:04:53 +0200
From:      Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.freebsd.dk>
To:        Julian Elischer <julian@whistle.com>
Cc:        Brian Somers <brian@awfulhak.org>, current@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject:   Re: RFC: Change to the device interface 
Message-ID:  <3799.897890693@critter.freebsd.dk>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 14 Jun 1998 22:25:32 PDT." <Pine.BSF.3.95.980614221307.6899A-100000@current1.whistle.com> 

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help

>maybe its a better idea to specify what the AIM is first :-)
>
>I have a request from Justin that he wants to be associate an open 
>(or mode upgrade) with a user (we can already do that) and 
>an IO request with a particular open and to be aware at any time
>of how many clients he has.
>
>point 1 is normal (struct proc *)
>point 2 needs something like what I suggest
>point 3 would be covered by your suggestion.
>
>so the question is: what do we want?
>
>I personally like th idea of ALWAYS being able to link an io request 
>to some session, even if just for accounting purposes.

Depends what the cost would be... I guess a struct proc * in each 
struct buf...

But I have a hard time thinking about it now, can we postpone it
till after USENIX ?

--
Poul-Henning Kamp             FreeBSD coreteam member
phk@FreeBSD.ORG               "Real hackers run -current on their laptop."
"ttyv0" -- What UNIX calls a $20K state-of-the-art, 3D, hi-res color terminal

To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3799.897890693>