[Parted-edge] Libraries for file-systems

[Matt Davis]

On Sat, Oct 20, 2007 at 03:37:58PM -0200, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> Matt Davis <mattdavis9 at gmail.com> writes:
> 
> > On Sat, Oct 20, 2007 at 12:37:35PM -0200, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> >> "Debarshi 'Rishi' Ray" <debarshi.ray at gmail.com> writes:
> >> 
> >> > ReiserFS: Libreiserfs from progsreiserfs
> >> > (http://reiserfs.osdn.org.ua/) as mentioned in the Parted manual.
> >> > Progsreiserfs aspires to be an alternative of the reiserfsprogs
> >> > (ftp://ftp.namesys.com/pub/reiserfsprogs/) as small and nice frontends
> >> > to this library. However the last release is on 10 January, 2003. This
> >> > is much earlier than the current reiserfsprogs release.
> >> 
> >> This one might be the starting point. We might start to write the need
> >> interface to use the reiserfs (not progreiserfs) for our use. This
> >> might allow us to get a good idea of what would be required to support
> >> it.
> >> 
> >> Other filesystems that doesn't has libraries, we might write a
> >> "backport" for the VFS to call those commands and try to keep this
> >> interface stable. So for "us" it would looks like it was a library.
> >> 
> >> Thoughts?
> >
> > Rishi,
> > This sounds reasonable.  I would like to help with this.  As we have talked in previous threads.  It would be nice to allow the parted interface of reiserfs to support any extra features that reiser might have over other FSes.  This is something we can toss into the vfs interface.  Possibly another routine that the PedFileSystemOps could contain.  Such routine would allow any extra features outside of standard mkpartition, resize, etc etc to be conducted.
> 
> While I like the idea to be more flexible as possible, I also think it
> adds complexity and sometimes we won't use it in near future and the
> tradeof for supporting it now might not be that good.

True.  This might also make parted a breeding ground for error reports that have
no association with parted.

> 
> I'm not saying that this is the case but if it starts to look to be
> too complicate, let's ignore it for now and come back to it once
> needed.

Yes.  VFS first, extra features later.  I have no contengencies with this.
Thanks for the thoughts

-Matt