Re: silent semantic changes in reiser4 (brief attempt to document the idea ofwhat reiser4 wants to do with metafiles and why

[Hans Reiser <reiser@namesys.com>]

Well I didn't get this response, so whether or not you sent it, it was 
not a lie. Drink less coffee.



viro@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk wrote:

>On Fri, Sep 10, 2004 at 12:21:50AM -0700, Hans Reiser wrote:
>  
>
>>I don't think that "Liar." is an appropriate response.
>>    
>>
>
>To a bold-faced lie?  Yes, it is.
>
>  
>
>>If you sent a 
>>response, just quote it.
>>    
>>
>
>I've already posted Message-Id, but if you prefer a quote, fine, here it is:
>
>============================================================================
>On Wed, Sep 08, 2004 at 01:21:45PM +0530, Sriram Karra wrote:
>  
>
>>Perhaps this is one? Message-ID: <413578C9.8020305@namesys.com>
>>    
>>
>
>OK...
>
>One note before replying: current code deadlocks even if you make ->link()
>*ALWAYS* return an error.  It doesn't get to calling the method.  No amount
>of "disallow hard links to <something>" is going to help here, obviously.
>
><quote>
>Cycle detection:
>
>We should either 1) make hard links only link to the file aspect of the
>file-directory duality, and persons who want to link to the directory
>aspect must use symlinks (best short term answer), or 2) ask Alexander
>Smith to help us with applying his cycle detection algorithm and gain
>the benefit of being able to hard link to directories (if it works well,
>best long term answer).
></quote>
>
>... which doesn't address the problem at all.  The question is what to do
>with seeing directory "aspect..." in more than one place when we have many
>links to file in question. 
>
You don't allow people to see the directory aspect in more than one 
place.....

> So much for (1).  And (2) is not feasible with
>on-disk fs both due to memory, CPU and IO costs _and_ due to exclusion from
>hell you'll need to make it safe.
>  
>
Your statement regarding 2) is unsupported by technical argument and I 
think wrong as well.

>Re: ambiguity - lots and lots of handwaving on both sides.  FWIW, I agree
>with Hans in one (and only one) respect here - openat() as a primary API
>(and not a convenient libc function) is an atrocity.  Simply because it
>doesn't address operations beyond open (unlinkat(2), anyone?).
>
>However, I still haven't seen any strong arguments for need of this "metas"
>stuff _or_ the need to export mode/ownership as files, both for regular
>files and for directories.  Aside of "we can do that" [if we solve the
>locking issues] and "xattrs are atrocious" [yes, they are; it doesn't make
>alternative mechanism any better] there was nothing that even pretended to
>be a technical reason.
>  
>
Closure is very technical as a reason. It seems to be above your head 
though. I can say more about it, but not before bed....

>Note that we also have fun issues with device nodes (Linus' "show partitions"
>vs. "show metadata from hosting filesystem"), which makes it even more dubious.
>We also have symlinks to deal with (do they have attributes?  where should
>that be exported?).
>
>Reserved names have one more problem: to be useful, they'd have to be
>hardcoded into applications.  And that will create hell with use of
>such applications on existing filesystems.  Again, no feasible scheme
>to deal with that in userland code had been proposed so far, AFAICS.
>  
>
How is this different from adding any new feature to any program 
(library, kernel, fs, daemon) with competitors, that other programs 
interact with? If you can't cope with change, don't user reiser4..... 
reiser4 still supports stat(),....

>Locking: see above - links to regular files would create directories seen
>in many places. 
>
No, it would only be seen from one parent, unless Smith's solution is used.

> With all related issues...
>
>
>  
>