From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261529AbVFVP7h (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Jun 2005 11:59:37 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261557AbVFVP5M (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Jun 2005 11:57:12 -0400 Received: from nysv.org ([213.157.66.145]:10403 "EHLO nysv.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261561AbVFVPzH (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Jun 2005 11:55:07 -0400 Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2005 18:55:05 +0300 To: "Artem B. Bityuckiy" Cc: Christophe Saout , Andrew Morton , Hans Reiser , hch@infradead.org, jgarzik@pobox.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, reiserfs-list@namesys.com Subject: Re: reiser4 plugins Message-ID: <20050622155505.GZ11013@nysv.org> References: <20050620235458.5b437274.akpm@osdl.org> <42B831B4.9020603@pobox.com> <42B87318.80607@namesys.com> <20050621202448.GB30182@infradead.org> <42B8B9EE.7020002@namesys.com> <20050621181802.11a792cc.akpm@osdl.org> <1119452212.15527.33.camel@server.cs.pocnet.net> <42B97F82.6040404@yandex.ru> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="wwU9tsYnHnYeRAKj" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <42B97F82.6040404@yandex.ru> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i From: mjt@nysv.org (Markus =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=20T=F6rnqvist?=) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org --wwU9tsYnHnYeRAKj Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Jun 22, 2005 at 07:10:58PM +0400, Artem B. Bityuckiy wrote: > >More filesystems in future may want to use these semantics. There are=20 >cases when one can't use Reiser4 to implement them, but instead, need to= =20 >implement another file system with the same semantics. So merge it as it is and move the stuff to the VFS as needed or deemed necessary. And enable the pseudo interface, or at least set it in menuconfig and enable by default, it needs testing too. Then someone says "we can't implement this in the fs" and someone else says "we can't implement this in the vfs" and someone else says "this is a good thing which we want but you won't let us" and we stagnate again... Isn't this bickering getting a bit old? After all, it seems the code is merged in -mm, the big issues are fixed and all should be ready for more real-life testing and such? --=20 mjt --wwU9tsYnHnYeRAKj Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFCuYnZIqNMpVm8OhwRAlNhAKCzjcojE8bVWZjWJt+vbWg1XMX2CgCgzRMq fYY23GL0oeKp4ICxqZxTJpk= =4wWu -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --wwU9tsYnHnYeRAKj--