![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 10:58:26AM -0700, Hans Reiser wrote: > Ask the users whether their laptops, etc., seem to go a lot faster with > V4. They seem to be pretty happy with it. > > V4 fixed all of V3's serious performance flaws, and totally obsoletes > it. I am very happy with it. Hans, that's not what we're discussing in this thread. I don't give a shit whether filesystem A is fater than filesystem B on task C. Really, how fast a fs is an implementation details. I also still think someone who does most work in the last years on a fs (Chris on reiserfs v3) should be considered maintainer, but that's just my 2cents and I'd rather leave that to you guys. The important part is xattr/acl/namespace semantics. In Linux those semantics are at the _VFS_ level, not at the individual filesystem, in fact if a fs can mess with namespace semantics I'd almost considere that a bug. So if you want different xattr/acl semantics after you ignored all the discussion has been going on the last years start *now* to discuss you proposal on -fsdevel, and acl-devel, explaining why your semantics are better and hash out the implementation details to support both transparently. Funneling in new semantics through a low level driver is pretty much always wrong. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-03-22 13:02 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||