Nikita Danilov wrote: >Hans Reiser writes: > > David Masover wrote: > > > > > > > > If indeed it can be changed easily at all. I think the burden is on > > > you to prove that you can change it to be more generic, rather than > > > saying "Well, we could do it later, if people want us to..." > > > > None of the filesystems other than reiser4 have any interest in using > > plugins, and this whole argument over how it should be in VFS is > > nonsensical because nobody but us has any interest in using the > > functionality. The burden is on the generic code authors to prove that > > they will ever ever do anything at all besides complain. Frankly, I > > don't think they will. I think they will never produce one line of code. > > > > Please cite one ext3 developer who is signed up to implement ext3 using > > plugins if they are supported by VFS. > >In fact, they all do: > >struct inode_operations ext2_file_inode_operations; >struct inode_operations ext2_dir_inode_operations; >struct inode_operations ext2_special_inode_operations; >struct inode_operations ext2_symlink_inode_operations; >struct inode_operations ext2_fast_symlink_inode_operations; > >As you see, ext2 code already has multiple file "plugins", with >persistent "plugin id" (stored in i_mode field of on-disk struct >ext2_inode). > > > > > Hans > > > >Nikita. > > > > > So the job is already done. Good. Reiser4 can be included then.:)
Hans "The Easily Agreeable" Reiser
