From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262484AbVFVBeM (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Jun 2005 21:34:12 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262448AbVFVBcy (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Jun 2005 21:32:54 -0400 Received: from ns2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:25986 "EHLO mx2.suse.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262484AbVFVB0e (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Jun 2005 21:26:34 -0400 To: Jeff Garzik Cc: reiser@namesys.com, hch@infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: reiser4 plugins References: <20050620235458.5b437274.akpm@osdl.org.suse.lists.linux.kernel> <42B831B4.9020603@pobox.com.suse.lists.linux.kernel> <42B87318.80607@namesys.com.suse.lists.linux.kernel> <20050621202448.GB30182@infradead.org.suse.lists.linux.kernel> <42B8B9EE.7020002@namesys.com.suse.lists.linux.kernel> <42B8BB5E.8090008@pobox.com.suse.lists.linux.kernel> From: Andi Kleen Date: 22 Jun 2005 03:26:26 +0200 In-Reply-To: <42B8BB5E.8090008@pobox.com.suse.lists.linux.kernel> Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org First Hans let me remind you that this discussion is not XFS vs reiser4. Christoph does a lot of reviewing and your child definitely is in serious need of that to be mergeable. I'm sure Christoph is able to review inpartially even when he is involved with other FS. Jeff Garzik writes: > > You're basically implementing another VFS layer inside of reiser4, > which is a big layering violation. > > This sort of feature should -not- be done at the low-level filesystem level. > > What happens if people decide plugins are a good idea, and they want > them in ext3? We need massive surgery to extract the guts from > reiser4. We already kind of have them, there are toolkits to do stackable FS with the existing VFS. However I suspect Hans is unwilling to redo his file system in this point. While it looks quite unnecessary there might be other areas which deserve more attention. In general all the code needs review, even if it is not as controversal as the reinvented VFS. -Andi