Re: vfs/vnode/file overhaul

["Simon 'corecode' Schubert" <corecode@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Matthew Dillon wrote:
> :Hey,
> :
> :as a 1.11 topic I think we should change the vnode/file interface to make more sense.  these are of course just stupid ideas to illustrate what I am thinking of:
> :
> :- all per-fdesc-I/O runs through a struct file and not directly to a vnode
> :- vnodes only represent logical entities (on disk), NOT devices or whatnot.
> :- thus drop specfs, this always seemed switched in at the wrong place in the stack
> :- this will allow us to do device cloning
> :- a slim vnode interface makes it easier to do support a...
> :- userland vfs interface which can support something like the kernel API, so userland drivers have a chance to be easily ported to the kernel.
> :
> :do I make sense?  feedback expected!
> :
> :cheers
> :  simon
>
>     I actually did implement a direct file-descriptor based interface for
>     devices, but quickly found that a lot of bits and pieces in the system
>     depend on the access and modified times of the device node in the
>     filesystem being updated.  This is a particular requirement for TTYs
>     and PTYs.
>
>     In otherwords, we need a devfs.  Once we have that then, yes, we can
>     get rid of the vnode API for devices.

in which way would that fix the issue?  how does the file and devfs play together?  i'd simply have put a vnode back-pointer (for now) to keep the times updated.

cheers
 simon

--
Serve - BSD     +++  RENT this banner advert  +++    ASCII Ribbon   /"\
Work - Mac      +++  space for low €€€ NOW!1  +++      Campaign     \ /
Party Enjoy Relax   |   http://dragonflybsd.org      Against  HTML   \
Dude 2c 2 the max   !   http://golden-apple.biz       Mail + News   / \