Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Thu, 25 Nov 2004 07:26:49 +0100 | | From | Jan Hudec <> | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] [Request for inclusion] Filesystem in Userspace |
| |
On Wed, Nov 24, 2004 at 14:05:51 +0100, Miklos Szeredi wrote: > > http://lkml.org/lkml/2004/7/26/68 > > > > 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 <bulb@ucw.cz>[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature] |  |