> > 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. > > It's a stupid idea. Moving a simple block based filesystem means it's > more complicated, less efficient because of the additional context > switches and harder to use because you need additional userspace > packages and need to setup fuse. > > We made writing block based filesystems trivial in the kernel to grow > more support for filesystems like this one. I don't feel strongly either way, and Christoph's arguments against fuse are mostly valid (although neither of them are serious). There's one thing which makes fuse a slightly better candidate for applications where the number of users is low: stability. Unless you or your users test the hell out of your filesystem, there always a chance that some bugs will remain. These rarely bring down the whole system, but it usually requires a reboot to let you continue using the Oopsing fs. Miklos -- 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
