From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Al Viro Subject: Re: NFS4 crack\ Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 22:02:12 +0100 Message-ID: <20050923210212.GI7992@ftp.linux.org.uk> References: <4333F258.1060603@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Peter Staubach , akpm@osdl.org, andros@citi.umich.edu, bfields@citi.umich.edu, Christoph Hellwig , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Neil Brown , Olaf Kirch , Trond Myklebust Return-path: Received: from zeniv.linux.org.uk ([195.92.253.2]:5850 "EHLO ZenIV.linux.org.uk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751290AbVIWVC0 (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Sep 2005 17:02:26 -0400 To: Bryan Henderson Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On Fri, Sep 23, 2005 at 01:50:26PM -0700, Bryan Henderson wrote: > It seems to me that the VFS interface is a lot better reason for nfsd to > be special and be an in-kernel application. But so far, I haven't seen > any argument that whatever nfsd needs out of VFS couldn't cleanly be added > to a system call interface. You say people have actually looked into it > and found that it has to be ugly; I just don't yet see why myself. For one thing, you do *not* keep locks on directories across the syscall boundary. Is that enough for you?