| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-Id: <20080412205544.5e12a7d4.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2008 20:55:44 -0700 From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> To: Bob Copeland <me@...copeland.com> Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] OMFS filesystem version 3 On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 23:33:44 -0400 Bob Copeland <me@...copeland.com> wrote: > On Sat, Apr 12, 2008 at 05:03:04PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > Adding a new FS to Linux is a pretty major thing. > > > > - A key question (which you don't seem to have addressed at all!) is: why > > is this a useful addition to Linux? What are the filesystem's strengths? > > What is its application? How does it improves Linux and by how much? > > Honestly, I'm not sure if this FS is mainline material or not. OIC. > If it is, > it is in the sense that the Amiga FS, befs, and so forth are useful: > 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. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists