On Sunday 26 June 2005 21:02, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 22, 2005 at 04:08:49AM -0500, David Masover wrote:
> > I've been reading a bit of history, and the reason Linux got so popular
> > in the first place was the tendency to include stuff that worked and
> > provided a feature people wanted, even if it was ugly. The philosophy
> > would be: choose a good implementation over an ugly one, but choose an
> > ugly one over nothing at all.
>
> And things change over time. Back in those days the linux codebase was
> small and it was easy to change things all over the place. These times
> our codebase is huge, and people that know enough parts of the kernel to
> do big changes are overloaded with work. Thus we have to set our
> acceptance criteria a lot higher now - else we'd be totally lost with
> the current size of the project already.
>
> > > We have to maintain said ugly code for decades. Maintainability is a
> > > big deal when you deal with the timeframes we deal with.
> >
> > Maintainability is like optimization. The maintainability of a
> > non-working program is irrelevant. You'd be right if we already had
> > plugins-in-the-VFS. We don't. The most maintainable solution for
> > plugins-in-the-FS that actually exists is Reiser4, exactly as it is now
> > - -- because it is the _only_ one that actually exists right now.
>
> We do have plugins in the VFS, every filesystem is a set of a few of them
> and some gluecode.
>
> <skipping a lot stuff>
>
> David and Hans, I've read through my backlog a lot now, and I must say
> it's pretty pointless - you're discussing lots of highlevel what if and
> don't actually care about something as boring as actual technical details.
>
> Hans has lots of very skillfull technical people like zam and vs, and maybe
> he should give them some freedom to sort out technical issues for a basic
> reiser4 merge, and one that is done we can turn back to discussion of
> advanced features and their implementation, hopefully with a few more
> arguments on both sides and a real technical discussion.
Unfortunately, this is not only a technical discussion... it is about linux
development model too.
Well, about the plugins. We can clean reiser4<->VFS interface up by setting
per-vfs-object inode/dentry/super ops instead using of our own dispatcher.
So different reiser4 inodes/files will have different i_ops/f_ops. That
would be only visible-in-VFS part of reiser4 object plugins.
Would the help to solve "reiser4 plugins" question? It is just as other FS do
-- procfs has seq_file and sysconfig interfaces below the VFS and l-k people
do not complain each day about layering violation ;-) Procfs is taken as an
example because it deals with objects of different types, actually anybody
may create own procfs objects more or less general way.
I don't belive that you want to see all reiser4-specific things as item
plugins, disk format plugins in the VFS.
Thanks,
Alex.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
