-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hans Reiser wrote: > Jeff Mahoney wrote: > >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> >>> On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 20:02:27 PDT, Hans Reiser said: >>>> Create a mountpoint which knows how to resolve a/b without using a >>>> "directory". >>> And said mountpoint gets past the '/' interpretation in the VFS, how, >> exactly? >> >>> fs/namei.c, do_path_lookup() does magic on a '/' on about the 3rd line. >>> So you're going to get handed 'a'. >> >> That's where he started talking about how BSD gets namei() right by >> allowing each file system to deal with it how it chooses. >> >> Personally, I think it's insane. On occasion, I've started to port >> ReiserFS to BSD-like systems, > > Porting V3 to anything is insane. Why would you even consider it?
Because I have an iBook I dual boot, and I wanted access to my reiserfs file systems while using OSX. I'd call it more of a write-from-scratch than a port, actually. >> and I get so fed up with how you have to >> reinvent the wheel for everything. There's something to be said for >> replaceable-anything semantics, but personally I like the Linux model >> and having an agreed-upon framework to work with. > > Linux vs. BSD's namei is the difference between thinking you know how to > do things and everyone should be forced into your mold, and thinking > that someone will always be more clever, at the very least with regards > to some special case you could never have anticipated. That's great, except that by and large, the Linux VFS covers all the common cases for you. This is such a ridiculous corner case that it hardly justifies using the BSD namei() semantics. >> I also think it's insane to come up with a reisermetafs to export procfs >> information when a simple s#/#!# _on a single directory name_ will do >> the job. > > Or just create a parent directory and skip the metafs. Look, I don't > much care about the other details of coding it, but if you are changing > !'s to /'s, as an architect my intuition says something is wrong and > being papered over. /'s are just fine, and what the block devices do is > elegant. You are doing a quick hack. Yes, it is a quick hack. It's called being practical and consistent until we can get around to removing slashes. Slashes *were* ok in block device names until we started using them as path name components. I've stated the reasons why adding a subdirectory is a bad idea multiple times. The fix is already accepted. I'm done discussing this. - -Jeff - -- Jeff Mahoney SUSE Labs -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with SUSE - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFEu+AGLPWxlyuTD7IRAjzqAKCk/nSheinL6AL4m+9YbG5FIo7f/ACeKWOd Urif7U9OMFwX9JzywowrMiM= =86sM -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----