From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff Garzik Subject: Re: reiser4 plugins Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 21:14:06 -0400 Message-ID: <42B8BB5E.8090008@pobox.com> References: <20050620235458.5b437274.akpm@osdl.org> <42B831B4.9020603@pobox.com> <42B87318.80607@namesys.com> <20050621202448.GB30182@infradead.org> <42B8B9EE.7020002@namesys.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Errors-To: flx@namesys.com In-Reply-To: <42B8B9EE.7020002@namesys.com> List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed" To: Hans Reiser Cc: Christoph Hellwig , Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, ReiserFS List Hans Reiser wrote: > Christoph, > > Reiser4 users love the plugin concept, and all audiences which have > listened to a presentation on plugins have been quite positive about > it. Many users think it is the best thing about reiser4. Can you > articulate why you are opposed to plugins in more detail? Perhaps you > are simply not as familiar with it as the audiences I have presented > to. Perhaps persons on our mailing list can comment..... > > In particular, what is wrong with having a plugin id associated with > every file, storing the pluginid on disk in permanent storage in the > stat data, and having that plugin id define the set of methods that > implement the vfs operations associated with a particular file, rather > than defining VFS methods only at filesystem granularity? You're basically implementing another VFS layer inside of reiser4, which is a big layering violation. This sort of feature should -not- be done at the low-level filesystem level. What happens if people decide plugins are a good idea, and they want them in ext3? We need massive surgery to extract the guts from reiser4. Jeff