On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 04:01:30 -0400 Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sat, Apr 12, 2008 at 08:55:44PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > it's a dead filesystem that a very few people still have a reason to > > > use. If FUSE is where this should live, then I'll just simply focus my > > > time on that instead (since I already have it in FUSE). > > > > Yes, pursuing the FUSE implementation sounds a better approach - it avoids > > burdening the kernel with a filesysstem which few will be interested in and > > is more practical for use by those who _are_ interested in it. > > No way. For a normal foreign block filesystem a proper kernel > implementation is much better. And this one is particularly > well-written. Lately I really start wondering why we keep adding crap > all over the core, but if we have a modular new filesystem that's quite > nice people start complaining. > I'm not complaining about anything. Who has? As the filesystem is for occasional, non-performance-sensitive use by a very small number of people, doing it via FUSE sounds like an all-round more practical approach. This has nothing to do with quality of implementation at all. I don't have particularly strong opinions either way. -- 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
