-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Hans Reiser wrote:
> Jeff Mahoney wrote:
>
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 20:02:27 PDT, Hans Reiser said:
>>>> Create a mountpoint which knows how to resolve a/b without using a
>>>> "directory".
>>> And said mountpoint gets past the '/' interpretation in the VFS, how,
>> exactly?
>>
>>> fs/namei.c, do_path_lookup() does magic on a '/' on about the 3rd line.
>>> So you're going to get handed 'a'.
>>
>> That's where he started talking about how BSD gets namei() right by
>> allowing each file system to deal with it how it chooses.
>>
>> Personally, I think it's insane. On occasion, I've started to port
>> ReiserFS to BSD-like systems,
>
> Porting V3 to anything is insane. Why would you even consider it?
Because I have an iBook I dual boot, and I wanted access to my reiserfs
file systems while using OSX. I'd call it more of a write-from-scratch
than a port, actually.
>> and I get so fed up with how you have to
>> reinvent the wheel for everything. There's something to be said for
>> replaceable-anything semantics, but personally I like the Linux model
>> and having an agreed-upon framework to work with.
>
> Linux vs. BSD's namei is the difference between thinking you know how to
> do things and everyone should be forced into your mold, and thinking
> that someone will always be more clever, at the very least with regards
> to some special case you could never have anticipated.
That's great, except that by and large, the Linux VFS covers all the
common cases for you. This is such a ridiculous corner case that it
hardly justifies using the BSD namei() semantics.
>> I also think it's insane to come up with a reisermetafs to export procfs
>> information when a simple s#/#!# _on a single directory name_ will do
>> the job.
>
> Or just create a parent directory and skip the metafs. Look, I don't
> much care about the other details of coding it, but if you are changing
> !'s to /'s, as an architect my intuition says something is wrong and
> being papered over. /'s are just fine, and what the block devices do is
> elegant. You are doing a quick hack.
Yes, it is a quick hack. It's called being practical and consistent
until we can get around to removing slashes. Slashes *were* ok in block
device names until we started using them as path name components.
I've stated the reasons why adding a subdirectory is a bad idea multiple
times. The fix is already accepted. I'm done discussing this.
- -Jeff
- --
Jeff Mahoney
SUSE Labs
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with SUSE - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFEu+AGLPWxlyuTD7IRAjzqAKCk/nSheinL6AL4m+9YbG5FIo7f/ACeKWOd
Urif7U9OMFwX9JzywowrMiM=
=86sM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-
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]
