Return to BSD News archive
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd
Path: sserve!manuel.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!sgiblab!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!moe.ksu.ksu.edu!crcnis1.unl.edu!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