> >> Background:
>
> >> Ideally struct buf should have had a real OO like operations vector
> >> like vnodes have it, and struct bioops is the first step towards that.
> >>
> >struct buf will eventually become merely an iocmd structure, so why do
> >we want to complicate things here?
>
> No, st
On Fri, 16 Jun 2000, Nick Hibma wrote:
> What about using uppercase names for
>
> buf_complete -> BUF_COMPLETE
>
> and friends to make it apparent that an indirect call is being made and
Ugh. Upper case names for function-like interfaces are for ones that
might be implemented as unsafe
What about using uppercase names for
buf_complete -> BUF_COMPLETE
and friends to make it apparent that an indirect call is being made and
that the function might not be supported on that struct buf. Much like
newbus, kobj, and vnode ops.
Nick
On Wed, 14 Jun 2000, Poul-Henning Kamp wr
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Luoqi Chen write
s:
>> Background:
>> Ideally struct buf should have had a real OO like operations vector
>> like vnodes have it, and struct bioops is the first step towards that.
>>
>struct buf will eventually become merely an iocmd structure, so why do
>we want
> Background:
>
> The bioops operation vector is a list of OO-like operations which can
> be performed on struct buf. They are used by the softupdates code
> to handle dependencies.
>
> Ideally struct buf should have had a real OO like operations vector
> like vnodes have it, and struct bioops
This patch virtualizes & untangles the bioops operations vector.
Background:
The bioops operation vector is a list of OO-like operations which can
be performed on struct buf. They are used by the softupdates code
to handle dependencies.
Ideally struct buf should have had a real OO like operat
