On 07/17/2012 22:54, Gustau Pérez i Querol wrote:
In fact filesystems not particulary specific and not tied our kernel
would go to userspace; thinks like smbfs, nwfs, ntfs, ext2 o ext4 for
example should be in userspace
The list is incomplete and maybe wrong; maybe some should stay in
the kernel. It was just a quick guess. If you are think the list should
be reviewed, I completely agree.
A big -1 here.
The more native FS support we have the better off we are in terms of
both people migrating from other OS', and people who need to maintain
compatibility with other OS'.
Well, I don't think we would lose compatibility (but I may be wrong).
I think there are some fs' too complex to implement or maintain, like
the ntfs one. About the ntfs case there's a complete fs implementation
of it in userspace. And there are also many other fs' implementations in
userspace. I think we can benefit from those implementations, removing
the burden of maintaining them in the kernel (it would have been useful
to have it in userspace right now because of the vfs giant lock removal
deadline).
The fs' staying in the kernel should be well maintained, the others
in userspace would always work too as long as fuse is up to date; if
anything changes in the kernel only fuse would need to be fixed to allow
the many fs' in userpace to work.
In the final situation we would end having a few fs in the kernel (I
don't exactly know which ones to keep) and then some in userspace that
could be installed via ports. We wouldn't lose compatibility with other
OS', I think instead we would have more compatibility because we could
benefit from the implementation of many fs' in userspace.
People migrating from other OS' would have the possibility of
installing the appropriate fusefs port.
Of course, I don't know the exact list of fs' staying and leaving.
Personally I use both msdosfs and ext2fs
extensively for the latter purpose, and would not want to see either
removed.
Well, I don't know which ones I would remove/migrate to userspace.
The msdosfs is probably one I wouldn't migrate.
About the ext2 I used to use it time ago at work. Now I remember
there was a GoC in 2009 to update the implementation and I would keep it
in the kernel. We could even keep ext2 in the kernel and have support
for it as a fusefs port; I could choose the kernel or the userspace
implementation.
At work I also have to deal with ext4 or exfat filesystems from time
to time. Having a working fuse implementation would allow me to have a
better compatibility with other OS'.
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prou top-posting : http://ca.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top-posting
Stop top-posting : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style
O O O Gustau Pérez i Querol
O O O Departament d'Enginyeria Telemàtica
O O O Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya
Edifici C3 - Despatx S101-B
UPC Campus Nord UPC
C/ Jordi Girona, 1-3
08034 - Barcelona
_______________________________________________
freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
