Date: Thu, 4 Jun 1998 18:09:05 +0000 (GMT) From: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com> To: dyson@FreeBSD.ORG Cc: jonny@jonny.eng.br, mike@dingo.cdrom.com, mike@smith.net.au, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: kernfs/procfs questions... Message-ID: <199806041809.LAA01972@usr05.primenet.com> In-Reply-To: <199806040441.XAA00768@dyson.iquest.net> from "John S. Dyson" at Jun 3, 98 11:41:14 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Think of this issue: > When writing a message to a /kernfs file to modify a function, > do you want to implement a full and general interface for partial > message transfers, etc??? Sysctl is pseudo-message based, and > operations are complete within themselves. I think the answer to this question may be: Yes. Once. > Also, kernfs implies > a filesystem, and the associated VFS stuff, while it isn't needed > with sysctl. You don't need vnodes, or any of the other cruft > to implement the unnecessary state for sysctl, while filesystems > have to implement all kinds of things... They don't have to. That's just the VFS API FreeBSD currently chooses to have. John H. certainly didn't design it to be that way. Speaking of which, is it stable enough for people without commit privs to wade back into the pool and start flinging patches yet? It seems that you had some SMP patches that you wanted to flesh out and commit, and Peter has announced some NFS patches, and Michael has yet to commit his vput() changes, and that it would be a good idea to wait on them before slogging back in to restart work on the reconstruction... Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers. 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?199806041809.LAA01972>