[lkml]   [2005]   [Jun]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: reiser4 plugins
    On Sunday 26 June 2005 21:02, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
    > On Wed, Jun 22, 2005 at 04:08:49AM -0500, David Masover wrote:
    > > I've been reading a bit of history, and the reason Linux got so popular
    > > in the first place was the tendency to include stuff that worked and
    > > provided a feature people wanted, even if it was ugly. The philosophy
    > > would be: choose a good implementation over an ugly one, but choose an
    > > ugly one over nothing at all.
    > And things change over time. Back in those days the linux codebase was
    > small and it was easy to change things all over the place. These times
    > our codebase is huge, and people that know enough parts of the kernel to
    > do big changes are overloaded with work. Thus we have to set our
    > acceptance criteria a lot higher now - else we'd be totally lost with
    > the current size of the project already.
    > > > We have to maintain said ugly code for decades. Maintainability is a
    > > > big deal when you deal with the timeframes we deal with.
    > >
    > > Maintainability is like optimization. The maintainability of a
    > > non-working program is irrelevant. You'd be right if we already had
    > > plugins-in-the-VFS. We don't. The most maintainable solution for
    > > plugins-in-the-FS that actually exists is Reiser4, exactly as it is now
    > > - -- because it is the _only_ one that actually exists right now.
    > We do have plugins in the VFS, every filesystem is a set of a few of them
    > and some gluecode.
    > <skipping a lot stuff>
    > David and Hans, I've read through my backlog a lot now, and I must say
    > it's pretty pointless - you're discussing lots of highlevel what if and
    > don't actually care about something as boring as actual technical details.
    > Hans has lots of very skillfull technical people like zam and vs, and maybe
    > he should give them some freedom to sort out technical issues for a basic
    > reiser4 merge, and one that is done we can turn back to discussion of
    > advanced features and their implementation, hopefully with a few more
    > arguments on both sides and a real technical discussion.

    Unfortunately, this is not only a technical discussion... it is about linux
    development model too.

    Well, about the plugins. We can clean reiser4<->VFS interface up by setting
    per-vfs-object inode/dentry/super ops instead using of our own dispatcher.
    So different reiser4 inodes/files will have different i_ops/f_ops. That
    would be only visible-in-VFS part of reiser4 object plugins.

    Would the help to solve "reiser4 plugins" question? It is just as other FS do
    -- procfs has seq_file and sysconfig interfaces below the VFS and l-k people
    do not complain each day about layering violation ;-) Procfs is taken as an
    example because it deals with objects of different types, actually anybody
    may create own procfs objects more or less general way.

    I don't belive that you want to see all reiser4-specific things as item
    plugins, disk format plugins in the VFS.


    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: 2005-06-27 11:35    [W:0.026 / U:3.136 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site