On Mon, 14 Apr 2008, Chris Mason wrote:seconded. switching to FUSE also has a cost for users, namely that they need to have FUSE setup (and the various interactions and deadlocks that can happen with a userspace filesystem, such as swapping to it) as a user I would prefer to see filesystems (even ones I don't expect to uer) be all treated the same way, not have to figure out that to use this list of filesystems I configure them in the kernel, and to use that list of filesystem I have to run FUSE. for testing, or for things that aren't really filesystems (views into version control systems, tarballs, etc) FUSE is a good match. but for real filesystems it's a poor second. David Lang --
| Tarkan Erimer | Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 |
| Benjamin Herrenschmidt | Re: [PATCH] Remove process freezer from suspend to RAM pathway |
| Greg KH | [patch 00/73] 2.6.23-stable review |
| Greg Kroah-Hartman | [PATCH 005/196] Chinese: add translation of SubmittingDrivers |
git: | |
| Arjan van de Ven | Re: [GIT]: Networking |
| Gerrit Renker | [PATCH 27/37] dccp: Integration of dynamic feature activation - part 2 (server side) |
| Jarek Poplawski | Re: [PATCH] pkt_sched: Destroy gen estimators under rtnl_lock(). |
| Frans Pop | svc: failed to register lockdv1 RPC service (errno 97). |
