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
-
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]
