Subject: Re: LFS frailty vs. datestamping [Was Re: /dev/clock pseudodevice]
To: gabriel rosenkoetter <>
From: Bill Studenmund <>
List: tech-kern
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.

Take care,