Return to BSD News archive
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd Path: sserve!manuel.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!sgiblab!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!hoptoad!kithrup!sef From: sef@kithrup.COM (Sean Eric Fagan) Subject: Re: Repeat of the question about VFS and VOP_SEEK() Organization: Kithrup Enterprises, Ltd. Date: Wed, 21 Oct 1992 22:15:15 GMT Message-ID: <1992Oct21.221515.1707@kithrup.COM> References: <1992Oct20.193544.2360@fcom.cc.utah.edu> <BwFu1E.759@pix.com> <1992Oct21.201738.22999@fcom.cc.utah.edu> Lines: 16 In article <1992Oct21.201738.22999@fcom.cc.utah.edu> terry@cs.weber.edu (A Wizard of Earth C) writes: >Historical reasons? >An attempt at uniformity in VFS interfaces? >The author thought that there was a 1:1 correspondance between system calls >(like lseek) and VFS operations? For the same reason, again, that VOP_OPEN exists, I'm sure: to say that such a thing cannot be done, if necessary. Alternatively, it was designed, and after they realized that VOP_SEEK wouldn't do anything, somebody already had code that used it, so they left it in. -- Sean Eric Fagan | "Time and space is a bitch!" sef@kithrup.COM | -- Gooshie (Dennis Wolfberg), -----------------+ "Quantum Leap: Killin' Time" Any opinions expressed are my own, and generally unpopular with others.