From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 10:19:57 -0600 From: "Ronald G. Minnich" To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@cse.psu.edu> Subject: Re: [9fans] alright, this should be interesting In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <35b09c83f408fc9fd7a2b0d019a96010@granite.cias.osakafu-u.ac.jp> <41753982.2090903@anvil.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Topicbox-Message-UUID: f31fb03e-eacd-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 On Wed, 20 Oct 2004, Tim Newsham wrote: > The one used by the kernel's stat syscall is. But you're > not obligated to use it (or the kernel's filesystems, for that > matter). then you're into emulating the kernel VFS layer outside the kernel, which is ok, sort of like trying to the candy bar without removing the wrapper. Seriously, that approach has been done to death for almost 30 years now, it works ok, but the limitations at this point are pretty well known. Not saying you can't do it, I did v9fs on freebsd and linux in user-mode libraries; at the same time, with the advent of versioned symbols in gcc libraries, it's kind of a pain in the a@@. Versioned symbols is when I stopped supporting it. Plus, you get the wonderful situation that all your file systems start to act a little different, depending on where you type 'ls'. I'm assuming you've done this a few times? ron