Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 09:03:59 +0000 (GMT) From: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org> To: =?utf-8?Q?Dag-Erling_Sm=C3=B8rgrav?= <des@des.no> Cc: Csaba Henk <csaba-ml@creo.hu>, freebsd-fs@freebsd.org, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [RFC] Remove NTFS kernel support Message-ID: <20080213085903.U13849@fledge.watson.org> In-Reply-To: <86d4r2540f.fsf@ds4.des.no> References: <3bbf2fe10802061700p253e68b8s704deb3e5e4ad086@mail.gmail.com> <70e8236f0802070321n9097d3fy1b39f637b3c2a06@mail.gmail.com> <slrnfqrp6g.i6j.csaba-ml@beastie.creo.hu> <867ihdc34c.fsf@ds4.des.no> <20080212190207.GB49155@beastie.creo.hu> <86d4r2540f.fsf@ds4.des.no>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text, while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools. --621616949-1602308289-1202893439=:13849 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE On Tue, 12 Feb 2008, Dag-Erling Sm=F8rgrav wrote: > Csaba Henk <csaba-ml@creo.hu> writes: >> Dag-Erling Sm=F8rgrav <des@des.no> writes: >>> How much work would you guess it would take to reimplement the >>> userland part under a BSD license? >> Well, I just started to work on a from scratch FUSE daemon library. [...= ]=20 >> So I think: fuse4bsd (ie, the kld + the mount util) + libfolly + sysctl = fs=20 >> could go to base under BSD license. It also might make sense to rebase= =20 >> ntfs-3g atop of folly -- although it won't help ntfs-3g being GPL'd. > > That doesn't matter; ntfs-3g can still be a port. > > What does matter is that if libfolly exports the same API as libfuse, we = can=20 > have a complete BSD-licensed FUSE implementation in the base system, with= =20 > minimal effort required to port FUSE-based file systems. Has there been any work to add more mature interfaces to fuse over the last= =20 couple of years? When I looked at it previously, and that was a year or tw= o=20 ago, fuse didn't work well with our notion of "referenced" vs. "open" vnode= s,=20 and required explicit data copies from cache files into the kernel to be=20 exposed via fuse. These are both areas where nnpfs, the userspace file sys= tem=20 framework for Arla, does much better, as they offer improved handling of=20 memory mapping (which persists after file descriptor close(), as in execve(= )=20 and with shared libraries) and performance (no need to feed data for files = to=20 the kernel, you can just point the kernel at a persistent cache file, possi= bly=20 cached from a previous session, allowing normal faulting of cache data into= =20 memory rather than requiring that pages pass through user space). My=20 understanding is that the NetBSD user space fs work offers a more mature=20 back-end interface than fuse, but allows the less complex fuse API to be us= ed,=20 but I've not done any detailed reading. These are areas where I assumed th= at=20 over time we'd see functional improvements in fuse, so I guess I'm wonderin= g=20 if that has happened? Robert N M Watson Computer Laboratory University of Cambridge --621616949-1602308289-1202893439=:13849--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20080213085903.U13849>