Re: [PATCHSET] FUSE: extend FUSE to support more operations, take #2

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
From: Tejun Heo
Date: Friday, November 21, 2008 - 6:06 am

Miklos Szeredi wrote:

Well, because it's simpler that way and people would be more used to it?
 It's just easier when you implement a method which returns something
and looks similar to the respective file operation.


Well, the choice was mostly for convenience as there also are a few
places where high level interface wraps things better a bit.  Converting
wouldn't be difficult.  Do you think it's important?  I think keeping
things as parallel to FUSE as possible is more important.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun
--
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
[PATCH 1/5] fuse: move FUSE_MINOR to miscdevice.h, Tejun Heo, (Thu Nov 20, 7:11 am)
[PATCH 2/5] FUSE: implement ioctl support, Tejun Heo, (Thu Nov 20, 7:11 am)
[PATCH 3/5] FUSE: add file kernel handle, Tejun Heo, (Thu Nov 20, 7:11 am)
[PATCH 5/5] FUSE: implement poll support, Tejun Heo, (Thu Nov 20, 7:11 am)
Re: [PATCHSET] FUSE: extend FUSE to support more operation ..., Tejun Heo, (Fri Nov 21, 6:06 am)