From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S268085AbUHZKje (ORCPT ); Thu, 26 Aug 2004 06:39:34 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S268033AbUHZKjS (ORCPT ); Thu, 26 Aug 2004 06:39:18 -0400 Received: from fw.osdl.org ([65.172.181.6]:59364 "EHLO mail.osdl.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S268085AbUHZK1Q (ORCPT ); Thu, 26 Aug 2004 06:27:16 -0400 Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 03:24:57 -0700 From: Andrew Morton To: Spam Cc: wichert@wiggy.net, jra@samba.org, torvalds@osdl.org, reiser@namesys.com, hch@lst.de, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, flx@namesys.com, reiserfs-list@namesys.com Subject: Re: silent semantic changes with reiser4 Message-Id: <20040826032457.21377e94.akpm@osdl.org> In-Reply-To: <839984491.20040826122025@tnonline.net> References: <20040824202521.GA26705@lst.de> <412CEE38.1080707@namesys.com> <20040825152805.45a1ce64.akpm@osdl.org> <112698263.20040826005146@tnonline.net> <1453698131.20040826011935@tnonline.net> <20040825163225.4441cfdd.akpm@osdl.org> <20040825233739.GP10907@legion.cup.hp.com> <20040825234629.GF2612@wiggy.net> <1939276887.20040826114028@tnonline.net> <20040826024956.08b66b46.akpm@osdl.org> <839984491.20040826122025@tnonline.net> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.9.7 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-redhat-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Spam wrote: > > > > > Spam wrote: > >> > >> Yes, for example documents, image files etc. The multiple data > >> streams can contain thumbnails, info about who is editing the file > >> (useful for networked files) etc. Could be used for version handling > >> and much more. > > > All of which can be handled in userspace library code. > > > What compelling reason is there for doing this in the kernel? > > > Because having user space tools and code will make it not work with > everything. Keeping stuff in the kernel should make the new features > transparent to the applications. > > Applications that support the new features will benefit, all others > will continue to work without destroying data. Sorry, but that all sounds a bit fluffy. Please provide some examples. (Generally, getting all of userspace to agree on a particular library is socially hard [*], but I don't see that as a reason for putting the functionality into the kernel) [*] Example: where's the library to manipulate /etc/whatever.conf? [**] [**] yes, I know about gconf.