Re: reiser4 plugins

[Nikita Danilov]

David Masover writes:

[...]

 > 
 > Maintainability is like optimization.  The maintainability of a
 > non-working program is irrelevant.  You'd be right if we already had
 > plugins-in-the-VFS.  We don't.  The most maintainable solution for
 > plugins-in-the-FS that actually exists is Reiser4, exactly as it is now
 > - -- because it is the _only_ one that actually exists right now.

But it is not so. There _are_ plugins-in-the-VFS. VFS operates on opaque
objects (inodes, dentries, file system types) through interfaces:
{inode,address_space,dentry,sb,etc.}_operations. Every file system
back-end if free to implement whatever number of these interfaces. And
the do this already: check the sources; even ext2 does this: e.g.,
ext2_fast_symlink_inode_operations and ext2_symlink_inode_operations.

This is exactly what upper level reiser4 plugins are for.

I guess that one of Christoph Hellwig's complaints is that reiser4
introduces another layer of abstraction to implement something that
already exists.

Nikita.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/