On Wednesday 22 June 2005 18:29, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 22, 2005 at 06:24:32PM +0400, Alexander Zarochentsev wrote:
> > Reiser plugins are for the same.  Would you agree with reiser4 plugin
> > design if the plugins will not dispatch VFS object methods calls by
> > themselves but set ->foo_ops fileds instead?  I guess you don't like to
> > have the two dispatching systems at the same level.
>
> That is exactly the point I want to make.  I haven't looked at the design
> in detail for a long time, but schemes to allow different object to have
> different operation vectors is a good idea.  

By same level i meant the vfs-like portion of reiser4 object plugin (read/write/readdir ...).  The rest of plugin can't be done by VFS, it is about reiser4-specific things.  The way how vfs calls are passed to reiser4 objects can be re-written to use VFS features by 100% but i don't think it woild make the code better.  

What is done currently is 1) reduces places when VFS enters reiser4 --  better because each VFS method implementation needs at least reiser4 context initialization/destroying; 2) uses existing reiser4 plugin scheme -- it adds no complexity because reiser4 can't live without plugins.  
Can we leave the plugins as they are?

> We already have that to 
> varying degrees in all filesystems, and making that more formal is a good
> thing.

Thanks,
Alex.