On Mon, Jul 17, 2006 at 08:49:31PM -0400, Jeff Dike wrote: > On Mon, Jul 17, 2006 at 10:48:04PM +0200, Erik Mouw wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 17, 2006 at 08:13:04AM -0700, Jeff Anderson-Lee wrote: > > > In the past I've wondered why so many experimental FS projects die this > > > death of obscurity in that they only work under FreeBSD or some ancient > > > version of Linux.? I'm beginning to see why that is so:? the Linux core > > > simply changes too fast for it to be a decent FS R&D environment! > > > > That hasn't been a problem for OCFS2 and FUSE (recently merged), and > > also doesn't seem to be a problem for GFS. > > I'm been maintaining a couple (for now) out-of-tree filesystems for > UML, and have seen only minor updates needed over the course of 2.6. > > Complaints about interface churn for filesystems (or anything else, > actually, since an architecture, such as UML, is exposed to nearly the > entire kernel) are imcomprehensible to me. Yes, in 2.6 there were very little changes to the filesystem interface. I count that as a good sign, it means our VFS and common fs helper code has become pretty mature. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
