Perhaps both are acceptable. Ie, permit an FS to opt-out, then work on new shared primitives.
Matt ----- "David Holland" <dholland-t...@netbsd.org> wrote: > > Another model entirely, on the other hand, is to get rid of the > vfs-level vnode cache and make each fs fully responsible for its own > vnodes. This can also get rid of a lot of the mess; the problem then > is that there's no obvious way to control how many inodes each fs is > allowed to keep live. (And also it promotes C&P code, replicated > bugs, > and so on, which is why I don't think it's a good idea.) > > -- > David A. Holland > dholl...@netbsd.org -- Matt Benjamin The Linux Box 206 South Fifth Ave. Suite 150 Ann Arbor, MI 48104 http://linuxbox.com tel. 734-761-4689 fax. 734-769-8938 cel. 734-216-5309