lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1999]   [Nov]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Getting IOCTL's into VFS File System Drivers
viro@math.psu.edu (Alexander Viro)  wrote on 13.11.99 in <Pine.GSO.4.10.9911132304500.2939-100000@weyl.math.psu.edu>:

> On 13 Nov 1999, david parsons wrote:
>
> > In article <linux.kernel.Pine.LNX.4.10.9911111758560.2217-100000@asdf.caps
> > lock.lan>, Mike A. Harris <mharris@meteng.on.ca> wrote:
> >
> > >Actually, from what I was just reading about Windows 2000,
> > >Microsoft is adding a new innovative feature that they single
> > >handedly came up with that allows you to "splice" a filesystem
> > >onto a directory point.
> >
> > JOIN. It's at least 11 years old, and it's existed since MS-DOS
> > 4.something.
> 3.something. And it required the mounpoint to be immediate
> subdirectory of root.

Nope.

>Due to the way they've stored the namespace state
> the whole thing fscked up magnificiently if you tried to work with the
> root of mounted fs via the old drive name.

Nope.

> SUBST was less b0rken, though.

Surprise! It used the exact same mechanism.

> And more useful, BTW - it gave weak equivalent of tilde-expansion. Mixing

I have no idea what you are talking about here.

> them was Bad Idea(tm).

No, but mixing them up in certain combinations was impossible exactly
because they used the same mechanism, which could only store one path for
each drive - so either the drive was a subst, or it was joined somewhere
(or neither), but you couldn't have both.

>I've looked at 3.30 kernel - scary and fascinating.

So have I. Seriously weird programming in there. Also seriously
inefficient programming.

> Obviously modeled after v7, but _what_ a mess had they slapped onto
> the upper half for CP/M emulation... Scary. It almost looked like a small
> subset of UNIX placed on a box with rather shitty IO and buried under the
> heaploads of CP/M compatibility crap. They might start with CP/M clone,
> but 3.x internals looked rather like a castrated and mutilated Xenix.

That was true since 2.x, actually, and what they mutilated was Xenix. It
was officially called "Xenix compatibility".

There is a persistent rumour that the "\" thing was because one of the
developers simply got things wrong by accident.

> ISTR some claims that NT 3.5 had unified tree and foo:bar names didn't
> even reach the kernel - translation happened in one of the shared libs.

I don't know, but I do know that NT 4 can arbitrarily reassign drive
letters, sometimes even on the fly IIRC. Doing it for the system partition
means you need serious registry hacking to fix all those paths, of course
...


MfG Kai

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:55    [W:0.063 / U:0.108 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site