From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Alexander Viro To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Subject: Re: [9fans] Plan 9 In-Reply-To: <1004699299.772773@firewall.isd.dp.ua> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2001 07:39:59 -0500 Topicbox-Message-UUID: 12995e96-eaca-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 On Fri, 2 Nov 2001, Wladimir Mutel wrote: > Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > > > What do people think about per-process directory hierarchies? I've > > asked the question about four times now, and sadly, nobody in this > > happy collaborative environment has anything to say. > > Nice thing. Linux is to borrow it :> Not likely, unless you can show a damn good reasons why it's a good idea. > > To repeat: Plan 9 has a nifty idea of making mount tables per-process, > > and as a result gets huge benefits across the board. But why stop > > there? Why should not *all* links (instead of just some) be a > > Linux should also borrow 'fileserver' concept. > Nice to have it instead of VFS-layer. And to make userspace > fileserver-processes instead of kernel VFS modules. Huh? What in your opinion VFS is and how could userland filesystems replace it? BTW, Plan 9 _does_ have VFS equivalent - code that deals with channels, mounts, etc.