lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Apr]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 0/7] OMFS filesystem version 3
On Mon, 14 Apr 2008, Chris Mason wrote:

> On Monday 14 April 2008, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 09:16:39AM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
>>> I think the exceed them quite easily. The costs are almost nil, while
>>> merging this provides another nice example fs (and one much easier to
>>> follow than ext*) for hardware that does have a few users and will no
>>> doubt get many more
>>>
>>> I wasn't aware Linus had introduced a new rule required 500 people sign
>>> up to use a feature before it gets added ?
>>
>> I'm also very surprised by this, especially as it seems to be applied
>> very selectively. This filesystems is an almost 0 maintainance burden
>> unlike a lot of really crappy driver we're shoving in constantly.
>
> Thanks to Bob Copeland for taking the time to submit this for mainline.
> Please don't mistake the resulting debate as a sign we don't appreciate the
> effort of making it available and getting it reviewed.

seconded.

> Unlike all the device drivers we don't want floating around out of the tree,
> filesystem authors do have a choice between FUSE and being in-kernel. Since
> OMFS has been maintained out of tree since 2.6.12 or so, Bob probably has a
> very good idea of how much time he has needed to spend updating things for
> each release.

switching to FUSE also has a cost for users, namely that they need to have
FUSE setup (and the various interactions and deadlocks that can happen
with a userspace filesystem, such as swapping to it)

as a user I would prefer to see filesystems (even ones I don't expect to
uer) be all treated the same way, not have to figure out that to use this
list of filesystems I configure them in the kernel, and to use that list
of filesystem I have to run FUSE.

for testing, or for things that aren't really filesystems (views into
version control systems, tarballs, etc) FUSE is a good match.

but for real filesystems it's a poor second.

David Lang



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-04-14 22:27    [W:0.160 / U:0.388 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site