home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd
- Path: sparky!uunet!ukma!wupost!usc!ucla-cs!ficus.cs.ucla.edu!johnh
- From: johnh@ficus.cs.ucla.edu (John Heidemann)
- Subject: VFS interfaces [Was: Re: 386BSD or LINUX?]
- Message-ID: <johnh.721096498@ficus.cs.ucla.edu>
- Sender: usenet@cs.ucla.edu (Mr Usenet)
- Nntp-Posting-Host: nottingham.cs.ucla.edu
- Organization: UCLA, Computer Science Department
- References: <1992Nov4.205620.8184@colorado.edu> <1992Nov5.060658.639@ntuix.ntu.ac.sg> <1992Nov5.185438.29465@fcom.cc.utah.edu>
- Date: 7 Nov 92 00:34:58 GMT
- Lines: 26
-
- terry@cs.weber.edu (A Wizard of Earth C) writes:
- >Linux supports the VFS interface (which is not a very good developement
- >system; read:
- >ftp.cs.ucla.edu:/pub/ficus/ucla_csd_910056.ps
- >which is John Heidemann's master's thesis, available via anonymous FTP
- >for details).
-
- I would not want to suggest that the VFS interface is not "good"
- (to mis-quote you slightly). It's far better than what came before it.
- I just happen to think there are some ways to make it better.
-
- For those who are interested, the in-kernel portions of the stackable
- file system interface discussed in the document referred to are
- available in BSD 4.4.
-
- >VFS does not equate automatically with a POSIX file system; UFS as it is
- >distributes in 386BSD is *mostly* POSIX compliant. All of the UFS features
- >mentioned are, however, good points in 386BSD's favor.
-
- With this I will heartily agree. The interface has relatively little
- to do with the semantics of a particular file system. Consider "/proc":
- I doubt that it will respond to my POSIX-compliant "creat" call.
-
- -John Heidemann
- UCLA Ficus Project
-
-