Re: No VFS means no FFS?

Previous thread: No VFS means no FFS? by tthorn on Sunday, January 12, 1992 - 10:53 pm. (1 message)

Next thread: kernel panic... by d88-man on Monday, January 13, 1992 - 6:35 am. (1 message)
To: <tthorn@...>, <Linux-activists@...>
Date: Monday, January 13, 1992 - 5:08 am

The VFS that is available as alpha (tsx-11, ALPHA) has the problem that
it wants you to rewrite almost everything when you add a filesystem (ie,
have a minix_open, and a ffs_open etc), which I find a bit boring, and
also makes for somewhat ugly code (several versions of essentially the
same set of functions). I decided that I didn't want to lock into that
yet: it might still be the way linux goes, but I don't want to have an
official release that binds me to something I think could maybe be
implemented cleaner.

VFS will come, but I'd rather see it (I'll implement it too, perhaps) as
a collection of just the low-level routines (read_inode(),
write_inode(), read_dir_entry(), write_dir_entry(), _bmap() etc), where
the general routines like "link()" etc would be the same for all
systems.

Linus

Previous thread: No VFS means no FFS? by tthorn on Sunday, January 12, 1992 - 10:53 pm. (1 message)

Next thread: kernel panic... by d88-man on Monday, January 13, 1992 - 6:35 am. (1 message)