On Wednesday 22 June 2005 18:29, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Wed, Jun 22, 2005 at 06:24:32PM +0400, Alexander Zarochentsev wrote: > > Reiser plugins are for the same. Would you agree with reiser4 plugin > > design if the plugins will not dispatch VFS object methods calls by > > themselves but set ->foo_ops fileds instead? I guess you don't like to > > have the two dispatching systems at the same level. > > That is exactly the point I want to make. I haven't looked at the design > in detail for a long time, but schemes to allow different object to have > different operation vectors is a good idea. By same level i meant the vfs-like portion of reiser4 object plugin (read/write/readdir ...). The rest of plugin can't be done by VFS, it is about reiser4-specific things. The way how vfs calls are passed to reiser4 objects can be re-written to use VFS features by 100% but i don't think it woild make the code better. What is done currently is 1) reduces places when VFS enters reiser4 -- better because each VFS method implementation needs at least reiser4 context initialization/destroying; 2) uses existing reiser4 plugin scheme -- it adds no complexity because reiser4 can't live without plugins. Can we leave the plugins as they are? > We already have that to > varying degrees in all filesystems, and making that more formal is a good > thing. Thanks, Alex. |
- Re: reiser4 plugins Alexander Zarochentsev
- Re: reiser4 plugins Hans Reiser
- Re: reiser4 plugins Horst von Brand
- Re: reiser4 plugins Adrian Ulrich
- Re: reiser4 plugins Michael Dreher
- Re: reiser4 plugins M.
- Re: reiser4 plugins Alan Cox
- Re: reiser4 plugins Hans Reiser
- Re: reiser4 plugins Vitaly Fertman
- Re: reiser4 plugins Avuton Olrich
- Re: reiser4 plugins Dan Oglesby