Re: setattr() syscall as proposed by phk

2002-12-15 Thread phk
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Matthew Dillon w rites: >And, I will also add, in regards to using the stat structure for >setattr(), that it creates a serious portability problem as well as >a serious forward and reverse compatibility problem. Which fields >in the stat structure

Re: setattr() syscall as proposed by phk

2002-12-15 Thread Matthew Dillon
And, I will also add, in regards to using the stat structure for setattr(), that it creates a serious portability problem as well as a serious forward and reverse compatibility problem. Which fields in the stat structure are going to be ignored by the syscall and which are no

Re: setattr() syscall as proposed by phk

2002-12-15 Thread phk
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Matthew Dillon w rites: >setattr() and friends do not exist anywhere outside of this proposal. >I don't particularly like the idea of replacing existing functionality >with a new non-standard system call. The speed issue alone is not enough >to justi

Re: setattr() syscall as proposed by phk

2002-12-15 Thread Matthew Dillon
setattr() and friends do not exist anywhere outside of this proposal. I don't particularly like the idea of replacing existing functionality with a new non-standard system call. The speed issue alone is not enough to justify the change, nor is Kirk's new creation time field (beside

Re: setattr() syscall as proposed by phk

2002-12-15 Thread phk
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Nate Lawson wri tes: >> Because 1 syscall and 2 namei calls are faster than 4 syscalls and >> four namei calls. > >Which leaves us back at my previous point which is that something is wrong >with caching if 4 namei calls (for the SAME name) are so much slower. A >g

Re: setattr() syscall as proposed by phk

2002-12-15 Thread Nate Lawson
On Sun, 15 Dec 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Nate Lawson writes: > >I don't mean to be rude but I doubt the utility of this whole > >plan. dump/restore are done on disk devices which are at least an order > >of magnitude slower than a syscall boundary crossing. Going from 4 > >syscalls to 1 can

Re: setattr() syscall as proposed by phk

2002-12-15 Thread Michael Ranner
Am Samstag, 14. Dezember 2002 16:24 schrieb Michael Ranner: > Hi there! > > I have implemented the setattr(), lsetattr() and fsetattr() syscalls for > 4.7 and 5.0. You can review my code on > http://www.ranner.jawa.at/freebsd.php. > In between I have modfied 5.0 restore to use setattr(). Because o

Re: setattr() syscall as proposed by phk

2002-12-15 Thread phk
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Nate Lawson wri tes: >On Sat, 14 Dec 2002, Michael Ranner wrote: >> Hi there! >> >> I have implemented the setattr(), lsetattr() and fsetattr() syscalls for >> 4.7 and 5.0. You can review my code on http://www.ranner.jawa.at/freebsd.php. >> >> Comments and suggesti

Re: setattr() syscall as proposed by phk

2002-12-15 Thread Nate Lawson
On Sat, 14 Dec 2002, Michael Ranner wrote: > Hi there! > > I have implemented the setattr(), lsetattr() and fsetattr() syscalls for > 4.7 and 5.0. You can review my code on http://www.ranner.jawa.at/freebsd.php. > > Comments and suggestions are welcome. I don't mean to be rude but I doubt the ut