[lkml]   [1999]   [Jun]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
Subjecthttpfs (Was: Re: A few questions.....)
On Thu, 24 Jun 1999, Stephen Frost wrote:

> > Wouldn't be a cleaner way to use standard open() call on a kind of
> > httpfs, ftpfs?
> >
> > And yes, in my opinion, httpfs, ftpfs and others could be a good examples
> > of user-space filesystem implementations.
> As a filesystem I could see it possibly going into the kernel, and
> have something like '/http/somehost/something.tar.gz'. That seems to make
> some amount of sense to me, and be cleaner than hacking up things to watch
> for 'http://' at the beginning of something...

There's no problem in it. I'm working on a user-space filesystem using
Jeremy's userfs and then you can do commands like

cp /http/somehost/some.tar.gz <somewhere_else>

I've even done a 'network filesystem' skeleton, which you can use for
quite simple implementation of other user-space filesystems like ftpfs.
I hope I'll finish it quite soon.

Concerning the possibility of writing user-space filesystems in current
kernels: You have several choices. Good overview is on Pavel Machek's
Podfuk site
I prefere the userfs.

I'm asking the other fs-developers: Is there any other current project of
httpfs, ftpfs like filesystems right now, which would implement these
filesystems inside kernel?

I'm curious how would someone implement inside kernel things like
gethostbyname(), etc. or using the TCP.

Yes. I can see a sense in using such filesystems like httpfs.


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

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:52    [W:0.063 / U:8.504 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site