Re: reiser4 plugins

[Lincoln Dale]

Hans Reiser wrote:

> > > ow, if his target is reduced to whether we can eliminate a function
> > > indirection, and whether we can review the code together and see if it
> > > is easy to extend plugins and pluginids to other filesystems by finding
> > > places to make it more generic and accepting of per filesystem plugins,
> > > especially if it is not tied to going into 2.6.13, well, that is the
> > > conversation I would have liked to have had.
> > fantastic - some common ground.
> > any reason WHY there has to be an abstraction of 'pluginid' when in
> > theory VFS operations can already provide the necessary abstraction on
> > a per-object basis?
> >    
> VFS supplies instances, plugins are classes.  If a language can
> instantiate an object, that does not eliminate the value of being able
> to create classes.
>
> Does it make sense to you now?
>  
you've lost me . . .

regardless, it isn't /me/ that you need to convince.  how about a 
posting to l-k on "why Reiser4 cannot use VFS infrastructure for 
[crypto,compression,blahblah] plugins" - ideally, for each plugin.


cheers,

lincoln.
-
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/