Date: Wed, 16 Apr 1997 16:16:32 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> To: spidaman@well.com (Ian Kallen) Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Feasibility of porting Linux filesystem code? Message-ID: <199704162316.QAA28363@phaeton.artisoft.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.3.93.970416144216.26662A-100000@well.com> from "Ian Kallen" at Apr 16, 97 02:50:55 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Come to think of it, I've migrated all of our IRIX filesystems to XFS > which is journaled like JFS. A FreeBSD XFS driver would certainly put a > smile on my face. I just mentioned EFS 'case I knew it existed amongst > the Linux folks. XFS has proved to be very stable under heavy load though > the procession of patches has made me wonder about how well they QA it. > I wish xfsdump had the v switch that Solaris' ufsdump has for verifying > a dump's integrity. Er, I'm drifting. Anyway, if you're interested in > developing an XFS driver for FreeBSD you have my moral support anyway! The Linux VFS interface is not reflexive; it's not cut at the right place for a journalled FS. FreeBSD's is much better, but it's still not there either... I've discussed this in detail with the guy who wrote the read-only NTFS driver for Linux. You need to be able to treat the VFS interface as if it were a transaction interface to do things like event rollback. It helps if the internal treatment is architected as event/responder, too. The same thing would help for Soft Updates, which is basically a transaction order enforcement mechanism, with the dependency graph statically computed (rendering it FFS-specific). Regards, Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199704162316.QAA28363>