From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261781AbVGRPVF (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Jul 2005 11:21:05 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261785AbVGRPVF (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Jul 2005 11:21:05 -0400 Received: from scrub.xs4all.nl ([194.109.195.176]:63625 "EHLO scrub.xs4all.nl") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261781AbVGRPVD (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Jul 2005 11:21:03 -0400 Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2005 17:20:40 +0200 (CEST) From: Roman Zippel X-X-Sender: roman@scrub.home To: Karim Yaghmour cc: Steven Rostedt , Tom Zanussi , richardj_moore@uk.ibm.com, varap@us.ibm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Christoph Hellwig , Andrew Morton Subject: Re: Merging relayfs? In-Reply-To: <42DBBD69.3030300@opersys.com> Message-ID: References: <17107.6290.734560.231978@tut.ibm.com> <20050712022537.GA26128@infradead.org> <20050711193409.043ecb14.akpm@osdl.org> <17110.32325.532858.79690@tut.ibm.com> <17114.32450.420164.971783@tut.ibm.com> <1121694275.12862.23.camel@localhost.localdomain> <42DBBD69.3030300@opersys.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi, On Mon, 18 Jul 2005, Karim Yaghmour wrote: > I guess I just don't get the point here. Why cut something away if many > users will need it. If it's that popular that you're ready to provide a > library function to do it, then why not just leave it to boot? One of the > goals of relayfs is to avoid code duplication with regards to buffering > in general. The road to bloatness is paved with lots of little features. There aren't that many users anyway (none of the examples use that feature). I'd prefer to concentrate on a simple and correct relayfs layer and we can still think about other features as more users appear. Starting a design by implementing every little feature which _might_ be needed is a really bad idea. bye, Roman