-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hans Reiser wrote: > All of this is why xattrs should not be implemented without first > implementing plugins.:-/ > > Really guys, there was a reason for my not wanting xattrs to go into > V3. Do you see it now? This is what happens when marketing determines > feature ship schedules. You could implement this xattr stuff in V4 in > 1/5th the time, 5 times the performance, and twice the elegance. Of > course, implementing them as pseudo files would be far more elegant > still....
And as I've said before, Hans, if the original code base was capable of supporting the plethora of items the white paper hyped, we wouldn't have run into this problem either. I would have loved to have implemented xattrs as another item type, but as soon as I did that, the kernel crashed almost instantly on not recognizing the new item type in the balance code. While it was certainly fixable in that version, properly fixing it would have required a ReiserFS 3.7 with capability bits similar to ext[23]. Looking back, maybe that wouldn't have been such a bad thing. As for waiting for v4, we've been through this before. Users wanted ACLs on ReiserFS yesterday, and I'd hardly brush aside features that users have been demanding as marketing. There's no denying that a reiser4-based solution would have been cleaner, but sometimes we just have to make do with what we've got. - -Jeff - -- Jeff Mahoney SUSE Labs -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFEEH3lLPWxlyuTD7IRAgz6AJ4l4/f92LJAKs65OqAbl8cIIL1PRACdE5Yb MmQcruV2Nmd2l3RS+V0TYrI= =ujKr -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
