Hi Tom! On Tue, Jan 18, 2005 at 04:46:14PM -0500, Tom Keiser wrote: > Secondly, I know this is a rather drastic proposal, but is it time to > consider splitting the cache manager out of individual filesystem clients?
What do you call a filesystem client and a cache manager in this context? I am afraid that different people (including myself) may think about very different things. > If the interfaces are abstract enough, we should be able to have multiple > distributed fs's using the same cache manager API. Do you mean any besides AFS and DFS? > help reduce the amount of in-kernel code for which each > project is responsible. Anyone else think this is feasible? Do you mean in-kernel cache management? Then probably no. Both filesystems and kernels are of great variety. If you mean a more general "cache bookkeeping library", then possibly yes, but still you'll get differences depending on how FSs and OSs distribute functionality between kernel and user space in a filesystem client. If you mean the upcall interface (a common kernel module for different filesystems), then probably no - it reflects both the corresponding filesystem semantics and the corresponding kernel architecture... Though, less demanding filesystems can be happy with "foreign" kernel modules - like podfuk-smb or davfs2 using the Coda module. My 2c, -- Ivan _______________________________________________ OpenAFS-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-devel
