[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200409083319.nlemf6d7g33hxhiy@wittgenstein>
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2020 10:33:19 +0200
From: Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@...ntu.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
linux-api@...r.kernel.org, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Serge Hallyn <serge@...lyn.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Saravana Kannan <saravanak@...gle.com>,
Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Seth Forshee <seth.forshee@...onical.com>,
David Rheinsberg <david.rheinsberg@...il.com>,
Tom Gundersen <teg@...m.no>,
Christian Kellner <ckellner@...hat.com>,
Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
Stéphane Graber <stgraber@...ntu.com>,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/8] loopfs: implement loopfs
On Thu, Apr 09, 2020 at 12:53:20AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> Almost 600 lines of code for a little bit of fine grained control
> is the wrong tradeoff. Please find a cheaper way to do this.
I think that's a slight misrepresentation of the patchset. Of course, I
get reservations against adding new code but none of this code will
exist at all if the config option is not set; and the config option is
not selected by default. I don't want people to have to use something
they don't care about of course.
The patchset itself unblocks a range of use-cases we had issues with for
quite a while and the standalone, tiny filesystem approach has served us
well already, so this is not something new. It's not just gaining
fine-grained control, it's a whole set of new uses and we don't just do
it for the fun of doing it but because we do have actual users of this.
Christian
Powered by blists - more mailing lists