lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1999]   [Jun]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: FENRIS & 2.0/2.2 problems
Date

One of the great things about the Linux Community is that everyone has a
great perspective and gets to voice it. These are some
excellent comments.

Jeff


-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Waltenberg <peterw@dascom.com>
To: Alexander Viro <viro@math.psu.edu>
Cc: alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>; Jeff Merkey
<jmerkey@timpanogas.com>
Date: Wednesday, June 23, 1999 8:19 PM
Subject: Re: FENRIS & 2.0/2.2 problems


>
>On 24-Jun-99 Alexander Viro wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Wed, 23 Jun 1999, Jeff Merkey wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Peter,
>>>
>>> David Goebel and I have been discussing writing a "universal" interface
that
>>> will allow linux file systems and NT filesystems to be used
interchangably
>>> between the two platforms. The benfits to Windows NT are obvious, and
David
>>
>> No. Not because of anti-Microsoft idiocy, but because that will introduce
>> a lot of cruft into the system. If NT folks want to do it - it's their
>> kernel and their choice. As far as I'm concerned fixing the common
>> interface for two *very* different kernels is idiocy. If anything, we
>> might look for unification with other Unices, but even that is
unfeasible.
>> Too different VFS designs. Linux is unique in that respect (post-2.0
>> branches). Linux interface will change - some things should be done to
fix
>> NFS interaction with braindead (inodeless) filesystems, etc. Linux VFS is
>> *good* thing, but it lacks some very nice stuff (stackable filesystems,
>> etc.) It *will* change. Not because somebody wants to break the stuff
>> left, right and center - there is more than enough in the main tree to
>> make such changes PITA for ourselves. But there are legitimate reasons
for
>> changes. Sometimes it's inevitable.
>>
>>> be beneficial for both platforms moving forward. An unchanging
"universal"
>>> file system interface would be very hot in Linux.
>>
>> Yes. As in "red-hot soldering iron in the place where the Sun never
>> shines". The only reasonable way, IMO, being to write a proxy fs that
>> would look as foo filesystem from one side and as bar VFS from another
>> (and the pair to it - other way round). Notice that native filesystems
>> would not use such thing. Said that, I'm pretty sceptical on NT future.
>> Yes, UNIX bigot. So sue me.
>
>We aren't criticizing the VFS design, or the fact that it changes.
>What we are saying is that it'd be nice if there was an interface layer
>between the whatever the vfs of the day was and "external" filesystems
>which provided an alternate filesystem layer with a consistant interface.
>
>The *ONLY* downside I can see with this is that it means that there isn't
>the pressure to update all that older code. Thats a major downside, and
>Alan probably has a better idea than I do of how many problems that would
>cause (or solve).
>
>There are certainly some filesystems where the vfs changes have been
>nightmarish to deal with. MSDOS/UMSDOS for example. Performance isn't an
>issue for "legacy" filesystems. Having to find someone who can update them
>when they break and where only a few % of Linux users need them is.
>
>I've helped break some more *cough* er fix a couple of filesystems going
>from 2.0->2.2 and it isn't fun. I doubt anyone would care much if the
UMSDOS
>filesystem sucked speedwise, it does anyway. But it's taken about a year to
>get that anything like functional again.
>
>That "proxy" filesystem is pretty much what I'm suggesting, someone writes
>support to allow fs "X" to work with that once, and it stays working
forever
>rather than being broken for a year after every internal change.
>
>If someone needs performance, fine, they can write a version which works
with
>the "real kernel interface", but there'd be a fallback available for when
>the next upgrade broke everything.
>
>Things like MSDOS, UFS, MINIX, probably even NTFS largely fall into this
>category.
>It's really nice to be able to interoperate with (i.e. read and write)
those
>filesystems, and performance is a secondary issue compared with it just
>working.
>
>
>
>Peter
>
>
>
>----------------------------------
>E-Mail: Peter Waltenberg <peterw@surf.dascom.com>
>Date: 24-Jun-99
>Time: 11:55:45
>
>This message was sent by XFMail
>----------------------------------
>


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:52    [W:0.218 / U:0.020 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site