On Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 11:39:28PM +0100, Ben Harris wrote:
> Where do you get the impression that vnd(4) is connected to the vnode pager? 
> As I understand it, vnd(4) is a means of making the contents of a file
> available through a block-device interface, while the vnode page makes the
> contents of a file available through the virtual memory system.  As far as I
> know, they're independent of one another.  It's certainly possible to build
> a kernel that uses the vnode pager (it's not currently disablable) but
> without vnd(4).

Okay, great. I agree. But that was never the thrust of my original
question to port-macppc, and I was trying to get some answers to what
I was actually asking about (the fact that LKMs are not supported by
the macppc port).

I have my own agenda with various other folks in the CS department at
Swarthmore College regarding the design of the system, and I do intend
to ask tech-kern about all of this, but not till I can ask
intelligently, which I can't yet. I didn't even want to be discussing
the vnode pager versus anon pager issue. I wanted to be disccussing
the LKM issue.

> >I'd be thrilled if someone criticizing my approach would like to do so
> >constructively.
> 
> If nothing else, discussions of the VM system belong on tech-kern, where
> people who understand it (unlike me) hang around.

Ben, what you read above was in response to several of people telling
me a segment of my thinking, which was entirely irrelevant to the
question I asked, was wrong, but not suggesting why what they
suggested was right (initially--Todd Vierling and Bill Studenmund have
both done so since). I don't want to argue about UVM on NetBSD mailing
lists till I actually understand the issues, which I pretty clearly
don't.

I will email a question to tech-kern regarding whether or not what I'm
thinking makes sense, but not till I've thought it out and discussed it
with the other people involved here. I started a discussion, I think
in the right place, on the port-macppc list regarding the lack of
support for LKMs. Branching *that* discussion (note the Subject: line
of this thread) to tech-kern does *not* make sense, and, though I
appreciate the advice I was given regarding UVM, it's not the reason
for discussion, nor am I prepared to discuss it right now.

       ~ g r @ eclipsed.net