Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: FUSE merging? | From | Miklos Szeredi <> | Date | Sat, 03 Sep 2005 07:31:34 +0200 |
| |
> Haven't thought about it all much. Have spent most of my time in the last > month admiring the contents of kernel bugzilla, and the ongoing attempts to > increase them.
A penal system could be created, for example if someone is caught introducing a bug, he will have to choose three additional reports from bugzilla and analyze/fix them ;)
> > - number of language bindings: 7 (native: C, java, python, perl, > > - C#, sh, TCL)
8 now, someone just sent a private mail about bindings for the Pliant (never heard of it) language.
> I agree that lots of people would like the functionality. I regret that > although it appears that v9fs could provide it,
I think you are wrong there. You don't appreciate all the complexity FUSE _lacks_ by not being network transparent. Just look at the error text to errno conversion muck that v9fs has. And their problems with trying to do generic uid/gid mappings.
> there seems to be no interest in working on that.
It would mean adding a plethora of extensions to the 9P protocol, that would take away all it's beauty. I think you should realize that these are different interfaces for different purposes. There may be some overlap, but not enough to warrant trying to massage them into one big ball.
> The main sticking point with FUSE remains the permission tricks around > fuse_allow_task(). AFAIK it remains the case that nobody has come up with > any better idea, so I'm inclined to merge the thing.
Do you promise? I can do a resplit and submit to Linus, if that takes some load off you.
Thanks, Miklos - 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/
| |