> > I'm not complaining about anything.  Who has?
quoted text
> > 
> > As the filesystem is for occasional, non-performance-sensitive use
> > by a very small number of people, doing it via FUSE sounds like an
> > all-round more practical approach.  This has nothing to do with quality of
> > implementation at all.
> 
> It's a stupid idea.  Moving a simple block based filesystem means it's
> more complicated, less efficient because of the additional context
> switches and harder to use because you need additional userspace
> packages and need to setup fuse.
> 
> We made writing block based filesystems trivial in the kernel to grow
> more support for filesystems like this one.

I don't feel strongly either way, and Christoph's arguments against
fuse are mostly valid (although neither of them are serious).

There's one thing which makes fuse a slightly better candidate for
applications where the number of users is low: stability.  Unless you
or your users test the hell out of your filesystem, there always a
chance that some bugs will remain.  These rarely bring down the whole
system, but it usually requires a reboot to let you continue using the
Oopsing fs.

Miklos
--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/