Subject: Re: LFS frailty vs. datestamping [Was Re: /dev/clock pseudodevice]
To: gabriel rosenkoetter <email@example.com>
From: Bill Studenmund <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 07/30/2001 11:51:17
On Mon, 30 Jul 2001, gabriel rosenkoetter wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 30, 2001 at 08:21:26AM -0700, Andrew Gillham wrote:
> > 3. Not UBC'ified yet. This means things that now expect mmap() to be
> > coherent (which it is on FFS) don't work when moved to LFS.
> Same answer as 1. Shouldn the UBC stuff live in ufs anyhow?
Yes, it should, and its lack is one of the few things which are keeping
1.6 from happening.