On Wed, Jun 22, 2005 at 06:46:50PM +0200, M. wrote: > >Is it not simpler to ask the reiserfs guys for a detailed explanation >of why and where this plugins' layer differs from using VFS for >plugins and let others comment on that ? I hope this is not FUD or something like that, but it seems to me the VFS guys are not too willing to implement Reiser4-HiFi stuff anywhere else, like the VFS, and don't want Reiser4 in, because it duplicates. Think of the chicken and the egg. I may be wrong, though. >If something cant be done using VFS this layer is needed by reiser4 >and has to be merged. But it's still possible to let Reiser4 in and take them, say, a feature at a time to the VFS. Unless it's going to be a political wankfest/pissing contest about if things like this should even be implemented, anywhere, ever :P -- mjt
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
- References:
- Re: -mm -> 2.6.13 merge status
- From: Jeff Garzik <[email protected]>
- Re: -mm -> 2.6.13 merge status
- From: Hans Reiser <[email protected]>
- Re: -mm -> 2.6.13 merge status
- From: Christoph Hellwig <[email protected]>
- reiser4 plugins
- From: Hans Reiser <[email protected]>
- Re: reiser4 plugins
- From: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
- Re: reiser4 plugins
- From: Christophe Saout <[email protected]>
- Re: reiser4 plugins
- From: "Artem B. Bityuckiy" <[email protected]>
- Re: reiser4 plugins
- From: [email protected] (Markus Törnqvist)
- Re: reiser4 plugins
- From: "Artem B. Bityuckiy" <[email protected]>
- Re: reiser4 plugins
- From: "M." <[email protected]>
- Re: -mm -> 2.6.13 merge status
- Prev by Date: Re: reiser4 plugins
- Next by Date: Re: ARM Linux Suitability for Real-time Application
- Previous by thread: Re: reiser4 plugins
- Next by thread: Re: reiser4 plugins
- Index(es):