Messages in this thread | | | From | Christian Mayrhuber <> | Subject | Re: silent semantic changes with reiser4 | Date | Thu, 26 Aug 2004 12:45:47 +0200 |
| |
On Thursday 26 August 2004 11:03, Anton Altaparmakov wrote:
> Please don't forget that if the reiser4 features are merged as they are > now, then we will likely be stuck with the API reiser4 chooses. There > will be tools that will rely on it springing up no doubt. > > Moving the reiser4 features to VFS later is fine and good, but what if > the VFS doesn't want the same API for those features? Either we would > have to allow reiser4 to continue providing the old API even though the > VFS now provides a new, shiny API or we would have to break all existing > API users on reiser4. Things like "I rebooted into the latest kernel > and my computer failed to boot because essential app FOO failed to > access the reiser4 API - Help!" spring to mind.
Andrew Morton wrote: >b) accept the reiser4-only extensions with a view to turning them into > kernel-wide extensions at some time in the future, so all filesystems > will offer the extensions (as much as poss) or
If option b) is chosen Reiser4 can become a playground.
There is the reiser4() syscall which you surely don't want to implement for other filesystems. Once there is some experience with this new fancy stuff the dust what is useful/insecure, etc. and what is not will settle and can be condensed into a vfs api. Apps like samba and user scripts will have to be adapted once this is the case, but this should not be to big a problem if this stuff is marked experimental.
People which want something stable can continue to use xattrs and a magnitude of filesystems for now.
-- lg, Chris
- 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/
| |