[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:0.019 / U:7.744 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site