Christoph Hellwig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The thread got off topic, the only real point I cared to make was that
> > if ReiserFS was made avalible for OpenSolaris it would be pretty kool,
> > reguardless of any opinions on the project of the filesystem itself.
> > The more the merrier.
>
> Of course. There's a reiserfs port for freebsd which might be used as
> a start by anyone who cares enough.
Why should this have any advantage?
> Ext2/ext3 are probably more interesting, as they have a wider userbase
> and support for them is much simpler. I wouldn't recommend using the
> existing Solaris ext2 driver, as it's has various problems: it's read-only,
> based on a very old ext2 codebase that lacks features used by default
> on modern Linux installation and has many known bugs, the Solaris glue
> isn't exactly nicely written, and it's licensed under the GPL [1].
What do you expect from a hack that has been done in less than a day?
> But given that ext2/ext3 is so similar to UFS allows for a much nicer
> implementation anyway, either by allowing different filesystem format
> personality for a common UFS layer as NetBSD did it in their BSD licensed
> ext2 implementation or as by takin the UFS codebase and chaning it to
> support the ext2 ondisk format, I did something like that for a never
> released [2] ext2 driver for UnixWare7. I took the UnixWare sfs [3]
> code and modified it to support the ext2 ondisk format. This would
> cover access to ext3 support aswell as ext2 and ext3 are the same basic
> ondisk format [4], the ext3 driver just supports a few additional
> features over the ext2 driver, thus you can access a cleanly unmounted
> ext3 filesystem as if it were ext2. Note that the ext2/ext3 userspace
> code (e2fsprogs) is ported to Solaris already.
Do you know of a nice overview on the ext3 on-disk format?
> [1] The GPL's intention is to not allow linking into programs with
> incompatible licenses. Whether this is actually enforceable in
> court for the case of kernel modules is a different question,
> but the module at least has licensing problems because of that.
Not correct:
- The GPL explicitly allows linking against the the basic parts
of the OS.
"However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not
include
anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary
form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the
operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component
itself accompanies the executable."
On Solaris, a filesystem is a program that is just executed in the
same context as the kernel but the 'krltd' prevents a general
linkage similar to what happens on Linux.
- The linking limitations only apply to code that you dustribute
as binaries. If you only distribute the code, is is legal in any
way....
> [2] And there's no chance it could be release, sorry
???
Jörg
--
EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (uni)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
