Hans Reiser wrote:
ow, if his target is reduced to whether we can eliminate a function
indirection, and whether we can review the code together and see if it
is easy to extend plugins and pluginids to other filesystems by finding
places to make it more generic and accepting of per filesystem plugins,
especially if it is not tied to going into 2.6.13, well, that is the
conversation I would have liked to have had.
fantastic - some common ground.
any reason WHY there has to be an abstraction of 'pluginid' when in
theory VFS operations can already provide the necessary abstraction on
a per-object basis?
VFS supplies instances, plugins are classes. If a language can
instantiate an object, that does not eliminate the value of being able
to create classes.
Does it make sense to you now?
you've lost me . . .
regardless, it isn't /me/ that you need to convince. how about a
posting to l-k on "why Reiser4 cannot use VFS infrastructure for
[crypto,compression,blahblah] plugins" - ideally, for each plugin.
cheers,
lincoln.
-
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]
