Date: Sun, 1 Mar 1998 22:38:07 +0000 (GMT) From: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com> To: mike@smith.net.au (Mike Smith) Cc: dima@tejblum.dnttm.rssi.ru, tlambert@primenet.com, FreeBSD-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: VM: Process hangs sleeping on vmpfw Message-ID: <199803012238.PAA27380@usr08.primenet.com> In-Reply-To: <199803012130.NAA09796@dingo.cdrom.com> from "Mike Smith" at Mar 1, 98 01:30:46 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > But you must write correct getpages/putpages for unionfs in any case. > > Or, better, make a bypass routine for unionfs, to avoid similar > > problems with future new vnode operations :-). > > Unless I'm mistaken here the contention is between Terry's point of > view where all filesystems should be stackable, and Dima's where > filesystems may optionally make themselves stackable. > > If I'm right, do we have a decision one way or the other? And if so, a > *comprehensive* set of patches that cover the conversion> > > I'm happy to fight the style-nit and getting-it-done wars, but I gotta > have the ammunition first. 8) This is a very succinct statement of the problem. I don't know if I can make the bypass work without NULL decriptor entries that don't result in defaultops being called. I also notice that the number of local media FS's is expected to fall (ie: LFS died), while the number of stacking FS's are expected to rise (ie: I expect to provide 3 or more, and other people have been considering ACL and cryptographic stacking layers). 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-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199803012238.PAA27380>