Matthew Wilcox wrote: > On Tue, Nov 14, 2006 at 07:59:43PM +0300, Al Boldi wrote: > > Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > > On Tue, Nov 14, 2006 at 06:43:39PM +0300, Al Boldi wrote: > > > > An API would probably be in order. > > > > > > > > Performance due to non-redundancy. > > > > > > > > Or a desire to let people choose what they want. > > > > > > > > Think freedom... > > > > > > How about fewer "visionary statements" and more code? > > > > How about discussing the feasibility before sending any code? > > Great idea. Discuss the feasibility, rather than responding with > platitudes to people telling you it's infeasible. I don't think an API is a platitude. google API and you may know what I mean. > Show examples, show how it would help. This thread is an example. > Take the inetd.conf example. Look at the current > user-space parser. Show how a new implementation might work. Plugins are nothing new. And are known to work. > Use pseudocode where necessary; this doesn't have to compile, it has to > convince people that there's something worthwhile in doing this. The important part is to convince those who ACK. IMHO, anyway. Thanks! -- Al - 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
