On Thu, 2005-10-20 at 00:10 +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > >> How I hate these licensing issues. FUSE is GPL, of course ... > > > > > >should not be a show stopper, imho. Project like this has clear API > > >between kernel and user spaces. GPL is about API implementation, not API > > >declaration.(I guess) As in case of FreeBSD, kernel part and ioctls code > > >needs to be re-written under CDDL, while user part will remain GPL which > > >is legal, AFAIK. > > > > > > Well, I also think that the FS layer is substantially different; > > so a bounce module would need to look different anyway. > > I also had the impresseion that the interface differs from what we use in > Solaris. > > I have the wich to have such a beast for Solaris since 1990. > Recently, I did have a longer discussion about the related kernel driver > with Frank Hoffman and as long as you omit mmap() support and allow the > kernel driver to forcibly unmont the fs in case a userland FS e.g. dumps > core, then it should not be hard to implement. > > For the "wofs" I did write around 1989-1990, I needed to implement swappable > kernel memory. In case such a filesystem would be implemented as a userland > process, it could just call malloc().
yep, paged out memory(in userland) is a little bit of concern here... but with right implementation design, should not be a problem. > In any case, a userland FS would definitely remove the GPL restrictions of > existing implementations and a port to Solaris would make sense. Right. Before anybody will start doing anything in this regard, lets contact FUSE development list and ask them on what they think about this idea and whether they are willing to help... Dmitry > Jörg > _______________________________________________ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
