From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] OMFS filesystem version 3 Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2008 01:20:01 -0700 Message-ID: <20080413012001.8d7967f4.akpm@linux-foundation.org> References: <1208041121-26787-1-git-send-email-me@bobcopeland.com> <20080412170304.54f139e2.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20080413033344.GA27494@hash.localnet> <20080412205544.5e12a7d4.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20080413080130.GA9622@infradead.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Bob Copeland , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org To: Christoph Hellwig Return-path: Received: from smtp1.linux-foundation.org ([140.211.169.13]:41507 "EHLO smtp1.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751601AbYDMIVG (ORCPT ); Sun, 13 Apr 2008 04:21:06 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20080413080130.GA9622@infradead.org> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 04:01:30 -0400 Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Sat, Apr 12, 2008 at 08:55:44PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > it's a dead filesystem that a very few people still have a reason to > > > use. If FUSE is where this should live, then I'll just simply focus my > > > time on that instead (since I already have it in FUSE). > > > > Yes, pursuing the FUSE implementation sounds a better approach - it avoids > > burdening the kernel with a filesysstem which few will be interested in and > > is more practical for use by those who _are_ interested in it. > > No way. For a normal foreign block filesystem a proper kernel > implementation is much better. And this one is particularly > well-written. Lately I really start wondering why we keep adding crap > all over the core, but if we have a modular new filesystem that's quite > nice people start complaining. > I'm not complaining about anything. Who has? As the filesystem is for occasional, non-performance-sensitive use by a very small number of people, doing it via FUSE sounds like an all-round more practical approach. This has nothing to do with quality of implementation at all. I don't have particularly strong opinions either way.