From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] OMFS filesystem version 3 Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2008 04:28:15 -0400 Message-ID: <20080413082815.GA20108@infradead.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> <20080413012001.8d7967f4.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Christoph Hellwig , Bob Copeland , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org To: Andrew Morton Return-path: Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([18.85.46.34]:58939 "EHLO bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751768AbYDMI2S (ORCPT ); Sun, 13 Apr 2008 04:28:18 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080413012001.8d7967f4.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: > 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. It's a stupid idea. Moving a simple block based filesystem means it's more complicated, less efficient because of the additional context switches and harder to use because you need additional userspace packages and need to setup fuse. We made writing block based filesystems trivial in the kernel to grow more support for filesystems like this one.