[lkml]   [2005]   [Sep]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: FUSE merging?
> Haven't thought about it all much.  Have spent most of my time in the last
> month admiring the contents of kernel bugzilla, and the ongoing attempts to
> increase them.

A penal system could be created, for example if someone is caught
introducing a bug, he will have to choose three additional reports
from bugzilla and analyze/fix them ;)

> > - number of language bindings: 7 (native: C, java, python, perl,
> > - C#, sh, TCL)

8 now, someone just sent a private mail about bindings for the Pliant
(never heard of it) language.

> I agree that lots of people would like the functionality. I regret that
> although it appears that v9fs could provide it,

I think you are wrong there. You don't appreciate all the complexity
FUSE _lacks_ by not being network transparent. Just look at the error
text to errno conversion muck that v9fs has. And their problems with
trying to do generic uid/gid mappings.

> there seems to be no interest in working on that.

It would mean adding a plethora of extensions to the 9P protocol, that
would take away all it's beauty. I think you should realize that
these are different interfaces for different purposes. There may be
some overlap, but not enough to warrant trying to massage them into
one big ball.

> The main sticking point with FUSE remains the permission tricks around
> fuse_allow_task(). AFAIK it remains the case that nobody has come up with
> any better idea, so I'm inclined to merge the thing.

Do you promise? I can do a resplit and submit to Linus, if that takes
some load off you.

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: 2005-09-03 07:34    [W:0.060 / U:1.704 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site