From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: reiser4 plugins (was: silent semantic changes with reiser4) Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2004 15:56:55 +0200 Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <20040828135655.GA13380@lst.de> References: <20040826014542.4bfe7cc3.akpm@osdl.org> <1093522729.9004.40.camel@leto.cs.pocnet.net> <20040826124929.GA542@lst.de> <1093525234.9004.55.camel@leto.cs.pocnet.net> <20040826130718.GB820@lst.de> <1093526273.11694.8.camel@leto.cs.pocnet.net> <20040826132439.GA1188@lst.de> <20040828105929.GB6746@alias> <20040828111233.GA11339@lst.de> <20040828120502.GE6746@alias> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from verein.lst.de ([213.95.11.210]:52892 "EHLO mail.lst.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S264286AbUH1N5D (ORCPT ); Sat, 28 Aug 2004 09:57:03 -0400 To: flx@msu.ru, Christoph Hellwig , Christophe Saout , Andrew Morton , Hans Reiser , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, flx@namesys.com, torvalds@osdl.org, reiserfs-list@namesys.com Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040828120502.GE6746@alias> List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On Sat, Aug 28, 2004 at 04:05:02PM +0400, Alexander Lyamin wrote: > > But one could even say VFS is integral part of a linux filesystem as > > it does most of the work a filesystem driver does in other operating > > systems. > > theres no "linux filesystem". there are "linux filesystems". > thanks god. a linux filesystem, not the linux filesystem, please read again. > But I it would be really grate if you'll elaborate your sentence with > example of VFS functionality (lack of it) on said "other operating systems" > and if you'll define "most of work". most trivial example is namespace locking, in *BSD, Windows, SVR4 and derivates it's done in the lowlevel filesystem. In plan9, Linux and soon DragonlyBSD it's done in the VFS. > > > P.S. I imagine, how much flamed it would be if reiser4 made any intensive > > > changes in linux VFS code... > > > > It really depends on how you sent them. If you had a big patch without > > explanations - sure. > It would work with small tweaks, but you just can take a look at reiser4 > code and you'll understand that it just could not be chopped in > "set of small patches" altough it could be documented better ofcourse, > but its really well commented already. > > some times, some approaches to some problems just would not work. You still haven't even bother explaining what you want to do. It's hard to argue against vague uncertainity.