| |||||||||||||
Personal thoughts of Reiser 4 and the KernelPersonal thoughts of Reiser 4 and the KernelPosted Jun 8, 2006 7:39 UTC (Thu) by Los__D (guest, #15263)In reply to: Personal thoughts of Reiser 4 and the Kernel by cventers Parent article: What's not going into 2.6.18
If it's just stylistic I'd say that it's silly to keep it out as it's a filesystem (not a piece of core code). Wasn't one of the gripes that it touches major pieces of the core VFS, not just it's own? If it's still so, I can see a VERY good reason to be perfectionist about this. It's quite a while since I followed the discussion though, so they might already have been forced to pull the VFS parts out.
(Log in to post comments)
Personal thoughts of Reiser 4 and the Kernel Posted Jun 8, 2006 9:11 UTC (Thu) by cventers (subscriber, #31465) [Link] I think you may be misremembering this a bit. To my recollection, one ofthe key friction points was that reiser4 developed this whole new concept of plugins, which was _very_ similar to the VFS. Kernel developers don't want abstraction layers hanging off of abstraction layers. So it really wasn't that they were abusing the VFS, it was just that they were building their own VFS under the VFS.
It was suggested that they take the differences in their plugin system and
I'm not sure what the status of the code is these days. I would imagine
Personal thoughts of Reiser 4 and the Kernel Posted Jun 8, 2006 17:08 UTC (Thu) by Los__D (guest, #15263) [Link] *plonk*
Yep, it was that way around! :)
|
|||||||||||||