Re: FUSE merging?

Miklos Szeredi
2005-09-03T05:32:00Z

> Haven't thought about it all much. Have spent most of my time in the last
> month admiring the contents of kernel bugzilla, and the ongoing attempts to
> increase them.

A penal system could be created, for example if someone is caught
introducing a bug, he will have to choose three additional reports
from bugzilla and analyze/fix them ;)

> > - number of language bindings: 7 (native: C, java, python, perl,
> > - C#, sh, TCL)

8 now, someone just sent a private mail about bindings for the Pliant
(never heard of it) language.

> I agree that lots of people would like the functionality. I regret that
> although it appears that v9fs could provide it,

I think you are wrong there. You don't appreciate all the complexity
FUSE _lacks_ by not being network transparent. Just look at the error
text to errno conversion muck that v9fs has. And their problems with
trying to do generic uid/gid mappings.

> there seems to be no interest in working on that.

It would mean adding a plethora of extensions to the 9P protocol, that
would take away all it's beauty. I think you should realize that
these are different interfaces for different purposes. There may be
some overlap, but not enough to warrant trying to massage them into
one big ball.

> The main sticking point with FUSE remains the permission tricks around
> fuse_allow_task(). AFAIK it remains the case that nobody has come up with
> any better idea, so I'm inclined to merge the thing.

Do you promise? I can do a resplit and submit to Linus, if that takes
some load off you.

Thanks,
Miklos