Messages in this thread | | | From | Stig Venaas <> | Subject | Re: VFS questions | Date | Fri, 2 May 1997 21:40:35 +0200 (MET DST) |
| |
> In my current mockup I'm passing the directory through in the options > data, but this isn't very clean. > > Would any other file-system ever need a directory as the "device"? If > so I can make some changes to fs/super.c to accomodate it. I don't > want to make changes just for one file-system though since I can fake > things for now.
I'm passing the directory in the options data as well. I've been thinking about some generic way of doing it too.
> Now is a very good time to tell me if someone else has already got a > working lofs :-)
Well, I've been doing some work on it. I've got a somewhat buggy read-only version you could have a look at. I haven't done much work on it yet, but it works sort of. There are some bugs in there, in particular I'm not sure about when I should call iget/iput. I need to take a closer look at the kernel code. I'm fairly new to kernel hacking. If you still are interested, have a look at ftp.nvg.ntnu.no in /venaas/linux. null.patch is against 2.1.29, but there are also one for 2.1.36. nullmount.c is a simple mount program.
What I think might be a good idea, is to implement stackable layers. lofs or nullfs is then just a null layer. A lot of useful stuff like unionfs, cachefs etc. is easier to implement then. One can have layers like compression, encryption, acl's, watchdogs etc. For details, see
http://gost.isi.edu/~johnh/WORK/stacking_faq.html and http://gost.isi.edu/~johnh/PAPERS/Heidemann91c.html
Stig
| |