Subject: Re: LFS frailty vs. datestamping [Was Re: /dev/clock pseudodevice]
To: gabriel rosenkoetter <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Jason R Thorpe <email@example.com>
Date: 07/30/2001 13:40:17
On Mon, Jul 30, 2001 at 03:28:51PM -0400, gabriel rosenkoetter wrote:
> > That's a hard problem. Dynamically-linked executables rather depend on
> > mmap(); are you suggesting that LFS not be used for anything except
> > data? That seems kind of absurd.
> No, I'm saying that any file system that uses the ufs layer needs to
> get UBC for free. And it will. In 1.6.
No, the problem is that since LFS has some different on-disk storage
and I/O requirements, the generic "getpages" and "putpages" routines
won't work for it. Thus it needs its own set of getpages/putpages
...and, it could be reasonably argued that LFS shares "too much" code
with UFS these days...
-- Jason R. Thorpe <firstname.lastname@example.org>