[lkml]   [2004]   [Nov]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH] [Request for inclusion] Filesystem in Userspace
On Wed, Nov 24, 2004 at 14:05:51 +0100, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> >
> >
> > discusses a userspace filesystem (implemented as a userspace nfs server
> > mounted on a loopback nfs mount), the problem, a solution (exactly your
> > suggestion), and a more generic solution.
> Thanks for the pointer, very interesting read.
> However, I don't like the idea that the userspace filesystem must
> cooperate with the kernel in this regard. With this you lose one of
> the advantages of doing filesystem in userspace: namely that you can
> be sure, that anything you do cannot bring the system down.
> And I firmly believe that this can be done without having to special
> case filesystem serving processes.
> There are already "strange" filesystems in the kernel which cannot
> really get rid of dirty data. I'm thinking of tmpfs and ramfs.
> Neither of them are prone to deadlock, though both of them are "worse
> off" than a userspace filesystem, in the sense that they have not even
> the remotest chance of getting rid of the dirty data.
> Of course, implementing this is probably not trivial. But I don't see
> it as a theoretical problem as Linus does.
> Is there something which I'm missing here?

But they KNOW that they won't be able to get rid of the dirty data. But
fuse does not.

Jan 'Bulb' Hudec <>
[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 14:08    [W:0.228 / U:0.296 seconds]
©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site