![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
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/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-06-22 03:17 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||