> While volume renaming isn't the most important feature on my plate,  
> I guarantee that my customers will expect it.  At any rate though, it  
> can wait until the rest of the FS is stable.

People expect a *lot* of stuff. Different customers expect different
things too. Sure, I'm familiar with that :)

> It seems as though it might be worthwhile to develop a way to add  
> features to the MacFuse API independently of the Fuse  API.  

Sure, MacFUSE isn't restricted by the FUSE API--it already does
numerous things differently from other FUSE implementations. I have a
whole bunch of new stuff I want to add for my own needs. Trust me,
it's not for lack of wanting or lack of mechanisms that I'm not
implementing volume rename. I need to prioritize things, that's all.

> Just so you know where I'm coming from, my starting point is a  
> platform independent UDF file system engine (UDFAPI) , which has  
> already been ported to several different operating systems.

It's not just a matter of porting it to different operating systems--
the fact that you are implementing your file system in user space
changes things considerably.

> I have this UDFAPI working (for the most part) within a kernel only  
> filesystem module, so I'm trying to replicate (as closely as  
> possible) the functionality of that filesystem.  (I'm porting it to  

Replicating functionality shouldn't mean you have to (or *can*) do
things the same way you do them in the kernel.

> cluster_read is a KPI function which performs the read directly,  
> providing efficient support for UBC - in my case bypassing  
> udfapi__read_file, and all of it's associated cruft  
> (LOG_KERNEL_MALLOC, uiomove, etc...).

I still don't quite understand--do you want cluster_read (or
equivalent) to be forwarded to user space? That's not going to happen
within MacFUSE. MacFUSE itself uses cluster_read (and I/O goes through
the buffer cache).

> It may be that none of this is actually necessary, or desired with  
> MacFuse - given that you're already supporting the UBC for file I/O.

Why not look at MacFUSE source (it *is* open source after all) and see
how it is doing things? I would say do that first so you don't end up
making incorrect assumptions or design decisions for your work.

Amit


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"macfuse-devel" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/macfuse-devel?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to