• Previous message: Perry and Lorae Merritt: "Funding status"
• In reply to: Don jessup: "Forgot the link"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000

Thanks. I'll have think about how we would use this interface for some of
the blocking things we might need to do.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Don jessup" <djessup72, yahoo dot com>
To: <antera, cryptofreak dot org>
Sent: Monday, January 07, 2002 10:40 AM
Subject: Forgot the link



  http://www.linux.it/kerneldocs/sysctl/


--- Don jessup <djessup72, yahoo dot com> wrote:
>
>   Very nice work.
>
>
> Ok, I finally got the first one ready for
> review.There
> is one known problem (there is no number 22, I go
> from
> 21 to 23) and I have questions about #23 and #25.
> For
> #23 I say ioctl, is it really going to be an fioctl
> or
> does it matter?
>
>
>     There are a couple of other options as well,
>   network, /proc (sysctl).  Acutally using sysctl
>   might be the preferable way.    This would allow a
>   simple script to communicate with the filter as
> well
>   as a c,c++,java,perl . .  I would imagine that a
>   user would have to create a c program to
>   communicate with the ioctl then the shell program
>   would have to use the c program to communicate the
>   ioctl.   Who know we might find it useful to all
>   three methods.   I guess it would be nice to leave
>
>   it open hence making this diagram a little for
>   general.   Here is very old link to a description
>   of the sysctl interface.
>
>   Now I just look at jay's comment about this I
>   agree with him 100%.
>
>
> For #25 I did my best to insert a queue, but I'm not
> sure its needed. Is each call we get going to be
> part
> of a unique kernel thread? If so, I think we can
> block
> the thread and eliminate the need for a queue.
>
>    I think this might be another case were this is
>    too   much detail.   If we specify one way
> another
>    person could do it another and defeat the purpose
>
>    of us having a patent.    Alright, I just read
> the
>    next paragraph so maybe you do want the detail in
>
>    there, well in that case I would just go with
> what
>   jay said in his comments.
>
>    I do have question, would it not be beneficial to
>    stay as general as possible and let the patent
>    attorney tell us if we need more detail?
>
>
>    One last comment  under FEILD OF THE INVENTION
>    should it not be something more general then NAS?
>
>    What if we use some sort of directly attached
>    storage?
>
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail!
> http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/
> --
> This is the antera mailing list.  To unsubscribe,
> email
> majordomo, cryptofreak dot org with message body
> `unsubscribe antera'.
> Or, for more information, visit
http://www.cryptofreak.org/.


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail!
http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/
--
This is the antera mailing list.  To unsubscribe, email
majordomo, cryptofreak dot org with message body `unsubscribe antera'.
Or, for more information, visit http://www.cryptofreak.org/.


--
This is the antera mailing list.  To unsubscribe, email
majordomo, cryptofreak dot org with message body `unsubscribe antera'.
Or, for more information, visit http://www.cryptofreak.org/.

• Previous message: Perry and Lorae Merritt: "Funding status"
• In reply to: Don jessup: "Forgot the link"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 2002.01.08 - 04.02 MST