On 27/1/21 2:43 am, Gedare Bloom wrote: > On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 9:02 AM Sebastian Huber > <sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de > <mailto:sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de>> > wrote: > On 25/01/2021 02:10, chr...@rtems.org <mailto:chr...@rtems.org> wrote: > > > From: Chris Johns<chr...@rtems.org <mailto:chr...@rtems.org>> > > > > - Add the bool flag no_reg_make_mode to the mount table so a file > > system can indicate creating regular files is not done by > > use the mknod handler. The file system will handle creating a > > file node in the open handler. > > > > - Note, the mount option is an enum which means there is only one > > exclusive option supported. As a result no encapsulation is > > provided and file systems need to set no_reg_make_node directly. > > I think this workaround is all right if it helps you to more easily use > the FreeBSD file system layer. In the long run we should keep only one > approach.
Yes it is needed to integrate FreeBSD's file system interface. I am not sure I would use the term work around. Integrating a fully featured file system like VFS presents some challenges and there is a fine line between the FreeBSD system call interfaces and the VFS interfaces used. A system call provides a nice clean and wrapped interface to the complexities present and a VFS interface is fast once you have the vnode. I have used a mix of these. The issue is libio does not completely handle all the node interactions needed and it seems only does in this specific case. For example it creates a regular file node for open but does not truncate a file at the mode level. The VFS does and much more and why the FreeBSD open system call is used. This change is as small as possible. I feel we need a major project to rework libio and to consider this and more. I am wondering if our sys call interface could use handlers and we could then make FreeBSD a root file system? This would let us look at FreeBSD kernel servers like NFS running on RTEMS. It would also improve performance for those with high speed networking. This however is not important for this patch or the current efforts under way. > > I would rename no_reg_make_node in no_regular_file_mknod. > > +1 on the name, I had no clue what it meant. > Sure. The ticket explains the problem being solved if that helps. Chris _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@rtems.org http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
