Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Tue, 21 Jun 2005 21:14:06 -0400 | | From | Jeff Garzik <> | | Subject | Re: reiser4 plugins |
| |
Hans Reiser wrote: > Christoph, > > Reiser4 users love the plugin concept, and all audiences which have > listened to a presentation on plugins have been quite positive about > it. Many users think it is the best thing about reiser4. Can you > articulate why you are opposed to plugins in more detail? Perhaps you > are simply not as familiar with it as the audiences I have presented > to. Perhaps persons on our mailing list can comment..... > > In particular, what is wrong with having a plugin id associated with > every file, storing the pluginid on disk in permanent storage in the > stat data, and having that plugin id define the set of methods that > implement the vfs operations associated with a particular file, rather > than defining VFS methods only at filesystem granularity?
You're basically implementing another VFS layer inside of reiser4, which is a big layering violation.
This sort of feature should -not- be done at the low-level filesystem level.
What happens if people decide plugins are a good idea, and they want them in ext3? We need massive surgery to extract the guts from reiser4.
Jeff
- 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/
|  |