Sat, Aug 28, 2004 at 01:12:33PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:

On Sat, Aug 28, 2004 at 02:59:29PM +0400, Alexander Lyamin wrote:

quoted

Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 03:24:39PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:

quoted

This VFS interface is an integral part of ??very filesystem, and it

VFS never was "an integral part" of ANY filesystem. my dog knows it.
its just unified INTERFACE TO any filesystem (including reiser4).

You's misquoting me.  IF you quoted the whole context it'd be pretty
sure that the part of the filesystem that intefaces with the VFS is
meant.

No. Its not me "misquoting", its just someone sound plain ?incoherrent?.
Even if I overquoted reply with whole message, its still sound ?incohherent?.

But one could even say VFS is integral part of a linux filesystem as
it does most of the work a filesystem driver does in other operating
systems.

theres no "linux filesystem". there are "linux filesystems".
thanks god.

But I it would be really grate if you'll elaborate your sentence with
example of VFS functionality (lack of it) on said "other operating systems"
and if you'll define "most of work".

quoted

P.S. I imagine, how much flamed it would be if reiser4 made any intensive
changes in linux VFS code...

It really depends on how you sent them.  If you had a big patch without
explanations - sure.

It would work with small tweaks, but you just can take a look at reiser4
code and you'll understand that it just could not be chopped in
"set of small patches" altough it could be documented better ofcourse,
but its really well commented already.

some times, some approaches to  some problems  just would not work.

-- 
"the liberation loophole will make it clear.."
lex lyamin