Re: [PATCH 0/7] OMFS filesystem version 3

[Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>]

On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 04:01:30 -0400 Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org> wrote:

> On Sat, Apr 12, 2008 at 08:55:44PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > it's a dead filesystem that a very few people still have a reason to
> > > use.  If FUSE is where this should live, then I'll just simply focus my
> > > time on that instead (since I already have it in FUSE).
> > 
> > Yes, pursuing the FUSE implementation sounds a better approach - it avoids
> > burdening the kernel with a filesysstem which few will be interested in and
> > is more practical for use by those who _are_ interested in it.
> 
> No way.  For a normal foreign block filesystem a proper kernel
> implementation is much better.  And this one is particularly
> well-written.  Lately I really start wondering why we keep adding crap
> all over the core, but if we have a modular new filesystem that's quite
> nice people start complaining.
> 

I'm not complaining about anything.  Who has?

As the filesystem is for occasional, non-performance-sensitive use
by a very small number of people, doing it via FUSE sounds like an
all-round more practical approach.  This has nothing to do with quality of
implementation at all.

I don't have particularly strong opinions either way.