From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Masover Subject: Re: Another article abour Reiser4 on linux.com Date: Sat, 05 Aug 2006 17:40:12 -0400 Message-ID: <44D5103C.2030201@slaphack.com> References: <87bqqzbaug.fsf@baldur.nicundtas.de> <44D4B154.6010005@slaphack.com> <28295017.20060805181722@wp.pl> <1254266559.20060805182204@wp.pl> <20060805180722.GN17805@HAL_5000D.tc.ph.cox.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Errors-To: flx@namesys.com In-Reply-To: <20060805180722.GN17805@HAL_5000D.tc.ph.cox.net> List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed" To: Clay Barnes Cc: =?UTF-8?B?TWFjaWVqIFNvxYJ0eXNpYWs=?= , reiserfs-list@namesys.com Clay Barnes wrote: > I like using a term that is already in an accepted part of the > kernel. Extensions might smack of plugins a bit much, and we're > trying to avoid just doing a s/plugins/extensions/ of the > arguments we're seeing now. We could do that with almost anything: >> Or just modules... netfilter has modules that allow us to write >> very cool and weird stuff (like unclean match once was) and >> nobody complains. Except that modules could also possibly remind people of proprietary modules, like the nvidia/ATI/vmware stuff. Still, if we allow netfilter, why not Reiser4 modules? >> Another word could be 'hooks' I don't think this would quite work. A hook describes more the place you connect to, whereas a module/plugin/whatever... Think of it this way -- the hook is what a plugin would plug in to. So it may not matter much what we name them, we're probably still going to need that cut'n'paste argument. Might be easier with "modules", though.