[lkml]   [2005]   [Jun]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: reiser4 plugins
Hash: SHA1 wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 14:58:07 CDT, David Masover said:
>>"Plugins" is a bad word. This user's combination of plugins is most
>>likely identical to other users', it's just which ones are enabled, and
>>which aren't? If they are all included, I assume they play nice.
> Which ones are enabled. Exactly.

I doubt there will be duplicate plugins, once things settle down. So
you just have the program demand certain ones to be enabled.

>>And just because they are called "plugins" doesn't mean the EA looks
>>different every week.
> They do if the one enabled this week is "make EAs look like symlinks", and
> last week's was "make EAs look like folders".

We could just as easily do that with other extended attributes. Sure,
the details would be different -- maybe we just randomly add a XA onto
the beginning of every string.

> (Don't blame me, *you're* the one that said "EAs can look like any other object"..)

Doesn't mean we can't guarentee a certain kind in a certain
configuration will always be available for a certain plugin, once it's
been accepted.
>>>And 'cat crypto/raw/foo' or 'crypto/inflated/foo.gz' gets you what, exactly
> ?
>>>Now throw some .bz2 and .zip files into the mix... ;)
>>Interface is the same. Only, zip files aren't just compression, so
>>maybe the interface changes a little there.
> Right. So please explain what crypto/raw/foo and crypto/inflated/foo.gz give you.

In that example (shouldn't have used the name "crypto", but oh well), it
should be crypto/raw/foo.gz and crypto/inflated/foo -- where foo.gz is
the gzip'ed file and foo is the transparently compressed/decompressed
file. Basically, these are equivalent:

$ zcat crypto/raw/foo.gz
$ cat crypto/inflated/foo

>>Point is, now you have a standard interface for any program to access
>>any simple lossless compression, transparently.
>>>>Another possibility, if you like file-as-a-directory:
>>>>cat foo.gz # raw
>>>>cat foo.gz/inflated # decompressed
>>>>One could easily imagine things like these two potentially equivalent
>>>>cp foo
>>>>zip bar foo
>>>Unless of course the user had done 'mkdir' to make
>>>a directory of files containing data sorted by USPS Zip code.
>>What's this got to do with anything?
> It's got a *LOT* to do with it if I created a *DIRECTORY*, to use *AS A DIRECTORY*,
> the way Unix-style systems have done for 3 decades, and suddenly my system is
> running like a pig because the kernel decided that it's a .zip file.

The kernel does not decide that. You do. And it doesn't automatically
decide that every time you create a file. You have to use some
interface to trigger the plugins.

Originally, this was file-as-a-directory. Now? I'm not sure, I guess
we could use a separate delimiter. Something like:

foo # file # directory containing xattrs of file, list of plugins used.

foo/ # directory
foo/... # directory containing xattrs of file, list of plugins used.

I guess I need a new name for this approach. That's three possible ways
of doing this?

>>>And what happens if the user has a file 'bar' that's not a ZIP file,
>>>and a directory '' isn't a view into 'bar'?
>>In file-as-a-directory (which is probably NOT happening soon),
>>is both the actual zipfile and the view inside, depending on whether you
>>try to open() it directly or peek inside it as a directory.
> Ahem. "' is a *DIRECTORY*. I said 'mkdir' - why is it not
> acting like a directory?

If you said "mkdir", it would act like a directory.

More likely than would be Which
would also work for tarballs. But would not automatically compress
anything you didn't want it to.

>>However, let's not discuss this now. I do NOT want to start another
>>"silent semantic changes with reiser4" thread. File-as-directory is not
>>happening this time, so don't worry about it -- this time.
> Fish or cut bait. You are the one who started handwaving the 'file-as-directory'.
> If you don't want it discussed, don't mention it.

I do want it discussed. I'm not sure it's a good idea now. But looks
like you got me...

>>>Most of the time, if I have a file 'linux-2.6.12.tar.bz2' and a
>>>directory 'linux-2.6.12', what is under the directory is *NOT* the same
>>>data as what's in the .bz2 - I've done 'make oldconfig' and a few builds
>>>and some variable amount of patching, usually with rejects, and I *don't*
>>>want that .bz2 being updated during all this (hint - what's my next command
>>>after 'rm -rf linux-2.6.12' likely to be, and why, and what expectations
>>>do I have when I do it?)
>>You're misunderstanding. man zip.
>>$ zip bar foo
>>creates/modifies a file named "", not "bar", which contains the
>>file "foo".
> No. *YOU* are misunderstanding. I have a directory 'linux-2.6.12', and
> I have a file 'linux-2.6.12.tar.bz2', and I do *NOT* want directory operations
> to be silently converted into "let's scribble into the middle of this tar file
> and then compress it". (Hint - work out how long a kernel 'make' would take
> if you were doing it inside a .tar.bz2).

I remember discussing that, actually. It wouldn't automatically do this
if you didn't want it to, but it would be nice if, say, it was something
truly seekable like, and linux-2.6.12 was a
user-created symlink to, and we had a nice
caching system...

This is nice because then you get exactly the same performance during
"make" as you would with "unzip && make", only better, because files you
don't ever use (lots of arch, for instance) are not unpacked.

This is all something that's been discussed before. I think the
consensus was that it sounded cool, but not useful enough by itself to
justify file-as-a-directory.

You can always go re-read "Silent Semantic Changes..."

>>>You want to think this sort of thing through *really* thoroughly, because
>>>there's a *lot* of things, both users and programs, that have expectations
>>>about The Way Things Work.
>>Or, I can avoid those issues altogether, and simply delegate this kind
>>of stuff to user-created-but-magic directories. For instance, I could
>>have a directory called "/foo" which contains encrypted files, and
>>"/foo/decrypted" which has transparently decrypted representations of them.
> So rather than everything working in a funky manner, a program gets to guess
> how funky, and in what direction, a given magical directory is....

It doesn't have to guess, it can know if it needs to. Although this
probably wreaks havok on traditional backup systems. You'd have to
implement a somewhat new backup system, but it's not impossible, and
certainly doesn't require that your new backup system know about every
plugin -- just make sure plugins know about backup.

Of course, file-as-directory avoids all that -- you just have to patch
programs to know that if foo/ exists or foo responds to opendir, foo is
not necessarily a directory. You probably just drop the trailing / and
use stat().

Both (all three?) appraches have cans-of-worms and workarounds. But I
think both (all three?) are doable. I know user-created-but-magic is

Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird -

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-06-27 00:48    [W:0.535 / U:31.476 seconds]
©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site