Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 23 Jun 2005 23:49:51 -0700 | From | Hans Reiser <> | Subject | Re: reiser4 plugins |
| |
Lincoln Dale wrote:
> > the irony of this whole thread is that history is repeating itself. > see http://www.ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0112.1/0519.html > kernel developers pushed back on you 3 years ago - in 2001 - what has > really changed?
It is exactly the same, but rather than dwell on that, I'll just remind that I have sent out two technical emails which talk only about the issue of plugins and pluginids, and whether plugins are classes rather than just instances, and whether the classes really would benefit from being instantiated into VFS at the cost of keeping the same info in two places, and I got no answer on them. Zam pointed out that our plugins do more than just VFS operations, and got no response on that or his other points.
Regarding trust, Christophe comes out the gate using the words "useless abstraction layer" that happens to be a core feature of our design, demanding we cut it out, and not really understanding it or recognizing any functionality it provides, and you can't really expect me to respect this, can you?
Now, if his target is reduced to whether we can eliminate a function indirection, and whether we can review the code together and see if it is easy to extend plugins and pluginids to other filesystems by finding places to make it more generic and accepting of per filesystem plugins, especially if it is not tied to going into 2.6.13, well, that is the conversation I would have liked to have had. - 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/
| |