Subject: Re: LKM support
To: Ty Sarna <>
From: John S. Dyson <>
List: current-users
Date: 11/10/1996 18:35:06
> In article <>,
> John S. Dyson <> wrote:
> > Right, I certainly was not disagreeing with him, but Chris did state
> > that the MFS uses MEMORY, and that was unclear what kind.  There is a really
> > easy (good) thing that can be done with the MFS code (haven't gotten
> > around to it.)  I suggest that using process space is silly, since
> [lots of changes for MFS]
> > The most significant disadvantage of our scheme is that
> > directories and files would have a 1 page granularity,
> > unless the code did some very careful memory management.
> > I could imagine that a follow-up design would be able
> > to address the issue easily, if it became bothersome.
> Why do major whacking on MFS? Seems to me it'd be much easier to just
> write a new fs type from scratch rather than attempting to change code
> built around totally different assumptions.
That would be essentially what it would be.  My initial set of simple
changes could easily be done against MFS.  Later on, the implication would
be to drop much if not most of the UFS infrastructure.  I think that I'll
initially implement a first stage set of changes against MFS (since it
will take a short amount of time.)  DG has been a proponent of a "total
rewrite" all along which pretty much entails removal much of the
UFS infrastructure (perhaps not all of it though.)