From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sun, 26 May 2002 16:33:37 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sun, 26 May 2002 16:33:36 -0400 Received: from bitmover.com ([192.132.92.2]:42203 "EHLO bitmover.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sun, 26 May 2002 16:33:34 -0400 Date: Sun, 26 May 2002 13:33:35 -0700 From: Larry McVoy To: Alexander Viro Cc: Larry McVoy , Alan Cox , David Schleef , Karim Yaghmour , Wolfgang Denk , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: patent on O_ATOMICLOOKUP [Re: [PATCH] loopable tmpfs (2.4.17)] Message-ID: <20020526133335.F30610@work.bitmover.com> Mail-Followup-To: Larry McVoy , Alexander Viro , Larry McVoy , Alan Cox , David Schleef , Karim Yaghmour , Wolfgang Denk , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20020526120630.C30610@work.bitmover.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, May 26, 2002 at 04:17:07PM -0400, Alexander Viro wrote: > > Sniffle, whimper. It is clearly different in that it calls out to the > > BSD allocation policy, which is completely different. > > Um... In 4.2 - more or less so. In 4.4 - way more than that: > * ffs_bmap() is not doing any allocations now > * ffs_balloc() does (and is an analog of old bmap()) and it contains I think I was looking at 4.3Tahoe, but it doesn't matter, what I was thinking about was your comment about frags, that makes things quite different. And I know, err, am pretty sure, that by this point Kirk had worked over the allocation policy to keep things in the same cylinder group when possible and I don't think that the original file system was quite as careful. > WTF? 4BSD code is out there, in SCCS, no less. Goes back > to 1982 or so. It's not that checking it would be a problem - grab > the 4th CD from Kirk's 4-parter (CSRG archives) and see yourself. Yup, got it. I've had some fun in there. > BTW, having _that_ converted to BK might be an interesting thing. > To do that one would need to take file moves into account, but they'd > got enough snapshots of the tree to reconstruct that... Yes, I know, it's on my list of things to do. There are some compat issues, it isn't a trivial thing, but we can and will do it. Another thing I plan to do is to build up BK repositories of all the BSD docs as well as all the troff docs. I really like troff, I'm not a fan of latex or word, troff still works better for me but I think many people abandoned it out of a lack of documentation. And when that's done, I'll make man page versions of all the stupid info stuff so I can say "man whatever" and get what I need. Wandering well into the weeds.... -- --- Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm