Re: Status of UMAPFS

[Bill Studenmund]

On Sat, 16 Oct 1999, Zhihui Zhang wrote:

 On Fri, 15 Oct 1999, Zhihui Zhang wrote:
 
  
  Is the UMAPFS working?  I add "options UMAPFS" to the configuration file
  of FreeBSD 3.3-Release and rebuilt the kernel.  I got the following
  errors: 
  
  loading kernel
  umap_vnops.o: In function `umap_lock':
  umap_vnops.o(.text+0x568): undefined reference to `null_bypass'
  umap_vnops.o: In function `umap_unlock':
  umap_vnops.o(.text+0x58e): undefined reference to `null_bypass'
  *** Error code 1
  
  Stop. 
  
 I find out that you must also include NULLFS in the kernel to compile. I
 have tested NULLFS and UMAPFS with some trivial commands.  Both works.

In NetBSD, we changed these two references to be to umap_bypass since it
is, after all, umapfs. :-)

Take care,

Bill



To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message

Re: Status of UMAPFS

[Zhihui Zhang]

On Fri, 15 Oct 1999, Zhihui Zhang wrote:

 
 Is the UMAPFS working?  I add "options UMAPFS" to the configuration file
 of FreeBSD 3.3-Release and rebuilt the kernel.  I got the following
 errors: 
 
 loading kernel
 umap_vnops.o: In function `umap_lock':
 umap_vnops.o(.text+0x568): undefined reference to `null_bypass'
 umap_vnops.o: In function `umap_unlock':
 umap_vnops.o(.text+0x58e): undefined reference to `null_bypass'
 *** Error code 1
 
 Stop. 
 
I find out that you must also include NULLFS in the kernel to compile. I
have tested NULLFS and UMAPFS with some trivial commands.  Both works.

-Zhihui



To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message

Status of UMAPFS

[Zhihui Zhang]

Is the UMAPFS working?  I add "options UMAPFS" to the configuration file
of FreeBSD 3.3-Release and rebuilt the kernel.  I got the following
errors: 

loading kernel
umap_vnops.o: In function `umap_lock':
umap_vnops.o(.text+0x568): undefined reference to `null_bypass'
umap_vnops.o: In function `umap_unlock':
umap_vnops.o(.text+0x58e): undefined reference to `null_bypass'
*** Error code 1

Stop. 

Any help is appreciated.

-Zhihui



To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message

Re: umapfs...

[Dag-Erling Smorgrav]

David E. Cross cro...@cs.rpi.edu writes:
 I have been looking at the code for UMAPfs... I am trying to understand 
 conceptually why it is so unstable...

You're looking in the wrong place. It's unstable because of
infrastructure problems which require fairly substantial amounts of
work to correct.

DES
-- 
Dag-Erling Smorgrav - d...@flood.ping.uio.no


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org
with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message

Re: umapfs...

[David E. Cross]

 I have been looking at the code for UMAPfs... I am trying to understand 
 conceptually why it is so unstable...

You're looking in the wrong place. It's unstable because of
infrastructure problems which require fairly substantial amounts of
work to correct.

DES

I guess that is what I am asking... What is different between the following:

int foo(void){
return 0;
}

and

int foo_prime(void) {
return foo();
}

That is my interpretation of the code.  It would *seem* to just pass the 
call off to the next FS layer as if the VFS system of the kernel had done it
directly Conceptually I must be missing something.

--
David Cross   | email: cro...@cs.rpi.edu 
Systems Administrator/Research Programmer | Web: http://www.cs.rpi.edu/~crossd 
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, | Ph: 518.276.2860
Department of Computer Science| Fax: 518.276.4033
I speak only for myself.  | WinNT:Linux::Linux:FreeBSD


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org
with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message

Re: umapfs...

[Dag-Erling Smorgrav]

David E. Cross cro...@cs.rpi.edu writes:
 That is my interpretation of the code.  It would *seem* to just pass the 
 call off to the next FS layer as if the VFS system of the kernel had done it
 directly Conceptually I must be missing something.

Umm, umapfs rewrites the owner/group of vnodes if I'm not mistaken.
That's the whole point with it.

DES
-- 
Dag-Erling Smorgrav - d...@flood.ping.uio.no


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org
with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message

umapfs...

[David E. Cross]

I have been looking at the code for UMAPfs... I am trying to understand 
conceptually why it is so unstable...  It looks straightforward enough as
simply passing the calls it receives on to the FS below it, almost like it
didn't exist at all.  Why does this cause problems?  Isn't the only difference
between a UMAP/UNION FS and a native FS an additional stack frame in the
kernel?

(As I am starting to wrap up this FS adventure, I am looking to start another:)

--
David Cross   | email: cro...@cs.rpi.edu 
Systems Administrator/Research Programmer | Web: http://www.cs.rpi.edu/~crossd 
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, | Ph: 518.276.2860
Department of Computer Science| Fax: 518.276.4033
I speak only for myself.  | WinNT:Linux::Linux:FreeBSD


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org
with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message