Re: silent semantic changes with reiser4

[Will Dyson]

Hans Reiser wrote:
> I think there are two ways to analyze the code boundary issue.  One is 
> "does it belong in the kernel?"  Another is, "does it belong in the 
> filesystem. and if so should name resolution in a filesystem be split 
> into two parts, one in kernel, and one in user space."  In ten years I 
> might have the knowledge needed to make such a split, but I know for 
> sure that I don't know how to do it today without regretting it 
> tomorrow, and I don't really have confidence that I will ever be able to 
> do it without losing performance.

I don't see how exporting a set of indices on file attributes to 
userspace constitutes putting part of the name resolution into 
userspace. A file's name (or names, in the case of hardlinks) would 
still be determined entirely within the filesystem.

The more I think about it, the more I am convinced that "the index" is 
the correct primative to use for exposing any filesystem's fast 
searching features.

--
Will Dyson
"Back off man, I'm a scientist!" -Dr. Peter Venkman
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/