On Mon, Jul 17, 2006 at 08:49:31PM -0400, Jeff Dike wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 17, 2006 at 10:48:04PM +0200, Erik Mouw wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 17, 2006 at 08:13:04AM -0700, Jeff Anderson-Lee wrote:
> > > In the past I've wondered why so many experimental FS projects die this
> > > death of obscurity in that they only work under FreeBSD or some ancient
> > > version of Linux.? I'm beginning to see why that is so:? the Linux core
> > > simply changes too fast for it to be a decent FS R&D environment!
> >
> > That hasn't been a problem for OCFS2 and FUSE (recently merged), and
> > also doesn't seem to be a problem for GFS.
>
> I'm been maintaining a couple (for now) out-of-tree filesystems for
> UML, and have seen only minor updates needed over the course of 2.6.
>
> Complaints about interface churn for filesystems (or anything else,
> actually, since an architecture, such as UML, is exposed to nearly the
> entire kernel) are imcomprehensible to me.
Yes, in 2.6 there were very little changes to the filesystem interface.
I count that as a good sign, it means our VFS and common fs helper code
has become pretty mature.
-
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]
