From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Amit Gud Subject: Re: file as a directory Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 16:37:16 +0530 Message-ID: <2c59f00304112403076b497bd1@mail.gmail.com> References: <2c59f00304112205546349e88e@mail.gmail.com> <41A1FFFC.70507@hist.no> <2c59f003041122222038834d7e@mail.gmail.com> <41A4632D.4060608@hist.no> Reply-To: Amit Gud Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Errors-To: flx@namesys.com In-Reply-To: <41A4632D.4060608@hist.no> List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: Helge Hafting Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, reiserfs-list@namesys.com On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 11:32:13 +0100, Helge Hafting wrote: > Amit Gud wrote: > > > > >On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 16:04:28 +0100, Helge Hafting wrote: > > > > > > > >>You won't get .tar or .tar.gz support in the VFS, for a few simple reasons: > >>1. .tar and .tar.gz are complicated formats, and are therefore better > >> left to userland. > >> > >> > > > >Agreed that .tar.gz is a complicated format, but zlib is already in > >the kernel. It _should_ simplify inflate and deflate of files. And as > >compared to .gz format, .tar is much simpler, I guess. > > > > > > > >> It is hard to make a guaranteed bug-free decompressor that > >> is efficient and works with a finite amount of memory. The kernel > >> needs all that - userland doesn't. > >> > >> > > > >I think, finite amount of memory is the concern of worry, not the rest > >... if we could rely on zlib. > > > > > > > >>2. Both .tar and .gz file formats may improve with time. Getting a new > >> version of tar og gunzip is easy enough - getting another compression > >> algorithm into the kernel won't be that easy. > >> > >> > > > >Doesn't zlib in the kernel gets updated as the formats change? If not, > >.tar formats would be worth trying first as proof of concept. > > > This is not so easy, as you have to audit the new version for > correctness. It is not the end of the world if tar or gzip > occationally crashes on some corner case. The kernel > must not do that though. > Yes, thats what I said in my last post...if the archive looks improper forget it. > And then there is the much more complicated issues when > writing into such an archive. You skipped that part, or > are you looking for a read-only solution only? > I'm coming up with something soon, along with the proof of concept....to wrap up all scenarios....need some time ;) AG