[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <E1JkzaV-0003Lm-NB@pomaz-ex.szeredi.hu>
Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2008 12:37:31 +0200
From: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
To: hch@...radead.org
CC: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, hch@...radead.org, me@...copeland.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] OMFS filesystem version 3
> > 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-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