Hi, Tony Mantler wrote: > For those of you who would rather not have read through this entire email, > here's the condensed version: VFS is inherintly a wrong-level API, QNX does > it much better. Flame on. :) VFS isn't really wrong, the problem is that it moved from an almost single threaded API to a multithreaded API and that development isn't complete yet. I don't really expect that fs programming becomes easier, but it should stay sane. For example I want to protect certain state changes properly and not that insane "check all possible states at all possible times and before and after every change" what Al is currently doing in ext2. bye, Roman - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- hfs support for blocksize != 512 Roman Zippel
- Re: hfs support for blocksize != 512 Matthew Wilcox
- Re: hfs support for blocksize != 512 Alexander Viro
- Re: hfs support for blocksize != 512 Roman Zippel
- Re: hfs support for blocksize != 512 Alexander Viro
- Re: hfs support for blocksize != 51... Roman Zippel
- Re: hfs support for blocksize !... Tony Mantler
- Re: hfs support for blocksi... David A. Gatwood
- Re: hfs support for blocksi... Alexander Viro
- Re: hfs support for blocksi... Roman Zippel
- Re: hfs support for blocksi... Alexander Viro
- Re: hfs support for blocksi... Roman Zippel
- Re: hfs support for blocksi... Roman Zippel
- Re: hfs support for blocksi... Alexander Viro
- Re: hfs support for blocksi... J. Dow
- Re: hfs support for blocksi... Alexander Viro
- Re: hfs support for blocksi... J. Dow
- Re: hfs support for blocksi... Alexander Viro
- Re: hfs support for blocksi... Roman Zippel
- Re: hfs support for blocksi... Alexander Viro