Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 06:30:28 +0000 From: Colin Percival <colin.percival@wadham.ox.ac.uk> To: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> Cc: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/sys mdioctl.h src/sys/dev/md md.c src/sbin/mdconfig mdconfig.8 mdconfig.c Message-ID: <6.0.1.1.1.20040311062306.03f9ade0@imap.sfu.ca> In-Reply-To: <48203.1078985587@critter.freebsd.dk> References: <Your message of "Thu, 11 Mar 2004 10:47:22 %2B0600." <20040311044722.GA93643@regency.nsu.ru> <48203.1078985587@critter.freebsd.dk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 06:13 11/03/2004, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: >That is a matter of taste more than anything else. A vnode backed md(4) >device is technically a layering violation, so either the syncer or >the md(4) code itself (or both) needs to be aware of the special case. <kernelnewbie> Is it really necessary for vnode-backed memory disks to be accessed through the filesystem? Why can't md(4) hijack the disk blocks which constitute the file (telling the filesystem not to touch them, of course) and translate I/O operations directly into I/O on the underlying device? </kernelnewbie> Colin Percival
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?6.0.1.1.1.20040311062306.03f9ade0>