Re: [PATCH 0/7] OMFS filesystem version 3

From: david
Date: Mon Apr 14 2008 - 16:25:06 EST


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

--
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/