Importing the fusefs kernel module?
Robert Watson
rwatson at FreeBSD.org
Thu Oct 28 01:56:56 UTC 2010
On Tue, 26 Oct 2010, Scott Long wrote:
>> The value of having FUSE in the tree is that it encourages people to put
>> forth the modicum of effort required to ensure that it still compiles when
>> kernel APIs change. I can't comment on whether it is popular enough to
>> support to such a minimal extent, but it is a nifty little package: you
>> maintain one kernel module, and you get passable support for several dozen
>> filesystems for free.
>
> What is comes down to is that it needs a committed owner, someone who not
> only will shepherd it into the tree, but also work on continuous
> improvements and handle bug reports. I personally think that it would be a
> good thing to have in the kernel, but I can't afford the commitment.
Agreed entirely:
FreeBSD definitely needs fuse -- but it needs a fuse that works well, not one
that corrupts data and panics in casual use.
Once there's an active maintainer who understands the code and can fix the
issues, I think importing it is the best thing to do -- while certain classes
of kernel modules might live comfortable in ports, file system modules are not
among them. But it needs an owner first.
Ivan: sounds like perhaps a call for volunteers on current@ / fs@ might be the
best way forward?
Robert
More information about the freebsd-arch
mailing list