Re: [HEADS-UP] growfs port for ffs2 and ffs1

[Masao Uebayashi <uebayasi%tombi.co.jp@localhost>]

On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 06:58:42PM -0400, Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 12:13:29AM +0200, Adam Hamsik wrote:
> > 
> > I have been testing growfs in a loop for some time now (ffs1, ffs2,
> > wapbl) and everything works fine, I will commit this during weekend if
> > there are no real objections.
> 
> I object, and I consider my objection (which is the same as the objection
> raised by a member of core!) to be real, even if you do not.
> 
> > Existence of resize_ffs which was never included to build and can't resize
> > ffs2 file system can't be considered as issue. 
> 
> I don't think it's correct to simply declare that others' objections
> "can't be considered as issue".  Resize_ffs is in our tree, it works, and it
> can shrink filesystems, which the code you propose to commit cannot!  I
> do not think something that duplicates most of its functionality, adds one
> new feature (support for ffs2) but omits another (shrinking filesystems)
> should be committed.

Speaking of code duplication, IMO, all filesystem data structure
related code should be moved to src/common, and shared between
kernel and userland.  External data representation is not specific
to either kernel or userland.  Same for network protocols.

> 
> Thor

-- 
Masao Uebayashi / Tombi Inc. / Tel: +81-90-9141-4635