From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Szabolcs Szakacsits Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] OMFS filesystem version 3 Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 04:08:35 +0300 (MET DST) Message-ID: References: <20080413082815.GA20108@infradead.org> <1208121358.2700.4.camel@shinybook.infradead.org> <20080414094215.GD2076@shareable.org> <20080414115540.GA5802@shareable.org> <20080414223556.GA21340@shareable.org> <20080415152313.GB8513@shareable.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: Miklos Szeredi , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org To: Jamie Lokier Return-path: Received: from emh03.mail.saunalahti.fi ([62.142.5.109]:49926 "EHLO emh03.mail.saunalahti.fi" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757904AbYDQBHA (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Apr 2008 21:07:00 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20080415152313.GB8513@shareable.org> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, 15 Apr 2008, Jamie Lokier wrote: > Miklos Szeredi wrote: > > > > How old? The out of tree fuse module (hoping to get rid of it soon) > > > > works down to 2.6.9. Beyond that it does probably require a fair > > > > amount of porting work. > > > > > > I imagine that backporting FUSE to 2.4 no-mmu will be more work than > > > backporting a filesystem, but I could be mistaken. Moving my project > > > to a 2.6 kernel (*any* 2.6 kernel) would be much more work than > > > either. > > > > Fuse-2.5 still supported linux-2.4. Although I have no idea if it > > works with no-mmu, maybe it's worth a try. > > > > Backporting ntfs-3g to an older version of fuse shouldn't be a big > > problem, as the fuse interface didn't change very much since then. > > Thanks for your advice. I will look into all these possibilities. > Fuse working would be quite useful in many other ways too. ntfs-3g was reported to work on 2.4 no-mmu kernels six months ago (though it had no our QA). Please see http://ntfs-3g.org/support.html#kernel24 and search for nommu on fuse-devel for the details. Szaka