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