On Sat, 12 Aug 2000, Alexander Viro wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Aug 2000, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> > The best we can do is to have _sane_ semantics for supporting such
> > filesystems. Sane and usable. Things like "fd_open()" make sense even
> > without resource forks - it's kind of a private extension of the notion of
> > "current working directory", after all.
>
> Good. How about the following implementation of your fd_open():
>
> mount(name, tmp, "ntfork", 0, NULL);
> sprintf(tmpname, "%s/%s", tmp, field);
> fd = open(tmpname, ......);
> return fd;
>
> Yep, requires umount(). But notice that this way we
> * don't need any magic syscalls
> * avoid all questions about out-of-file renaming, etc.
> * don't have to do _any_ VFS changes - it's all there.
> * let the userland decide (and explicitly tell us) what it wants.
I do think that the approach works from a technology standpoint, but I
cannot honestly say that I think this is even remotely "user-friendly".
I actually think that Linux with the stuff that is going on in 3D,
desktops etc has a chance to become the first real user-friendly UNIX.
Gnome is looking mighty fine these days if you just have the memory, and
on the whole things look quite nice.
I'd much rather have an implied mount happen automatically (if the forks
are to be done with a mount-like internal implementation) for the user
when he encounters a file with forks. So that people can just write
scripts etc, and without the user having to care about the details.
Linus
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Aug 15 2000 - 21:00:29 EST