From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262450AbVFVBOX (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Jun 2005 21:14:23 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262454AbVFVBOX (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Jun 2005 21:14:23 -0400 Received: from mail.dvmed.net ([216.237.124.58]:25002 "EHLO mail.dvmed.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262450AbVFVBOT (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Jun 2005 21:14:19 -0400 Message-ID: <42B8BB5E.8090008@pobox.com> Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 21:14:06 -0400 From: Jeff Garzik User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2-6 (X11/20050513) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Hans Reiser CC: Christoph Hellwig , Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, ReiserFS List Subject: Re: reiser4 plugins References: <20050620235458.5b437274.akpm@osdl.org> <42B831B4.9020603@pobox.com> <42B87318.80607@namesys.com> <20050621202448.GB30182@infradead.org> <42B8B9EE.7020002@namesys.com> In-Reply-To: <42B8B9EE.7020002@namesys.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hans Reiser wrote: > Christoph, > > Reiser4 users love the plugin concept, and all audiences which have > listened to a presentation on plugins have been quite positive about > it. Many users think it is the best thing about reiser4. Can you > articulate why you are opposed to plugins in more detail? Perhaps you > are simply not as familiar with it as the audiences I have presented > to. Perhaps persons on our mailing list can comment..... > > In particular, what is wrong with having a plugin id associated with > every file, storing the pluginid on disk in permanent storage in the > stat data, and having that plugin id define the set of methods that > implement the vfs operations associated with a particular file, rather > than defining VFS methods only at filesystem granularity? You're basically implementing another VFS layer inside of reiser4, which is a big layering violation. This sort of feature should -not- be done at the low-level filesystem level. What happens if people decide plugins are a good idea, and they want them in ext3? We need massive surgery to extract the guts from reiser4. Jeff