Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 26 Nov 2001 23:01:35 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 26 Nov 2001 23:01:24 -0500 Received: from femail39.sdc1.sfba.home.com ([24.254.60.33]:3507 "EHLO femail39.sdc1.sfba.home.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 26 Nov 2001 23:01:15 -0500 Message-ID: <3C030FB4.C3303BE4@ecf.utoronto.ca> Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 22:59:48 -0500 From: Mark Richards Organization: Comp Eng. 0T1 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.9-12 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Multiplexing filesystem Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Quick question, which I suspect has a long answer. I would like to write a multiplexing filesystem. The idea is as follows: The filesystem would ideally wrap another filesystem, such as nfs or smbfs or ext2. Most operations would just be passed to the native fs call. However, for some files, selectable at run time by some control singal, would actually reside on another file system. The other filesystem would have to be mounted. The idea is for a version controlling filesystem. The server would be a network server (hence the desire to wrap nfs) which presents a 'view' of the source code. When the user reserves a file for editing, the file is copied to the local disk. From that point on, the local file is referred to until the user commits the change or unreserves the file. Ideally, the local copy of the file could be on any file system, not one that is necessarily local. And this has to be totally transparent to the user, except for the step where the user 'reserves' the file. I've thought about two ways to do this. One is to wrap the 'versioning' file system with a multiplexor that checks fs calls to see if they are referring to a file that is on a different fs. The other approach is to intercept calls to the VFS to do the same trick. I'm new to the whole filesystem-coding thing, so bear with me if what i've just said makes no sense. So, my question (I guess it wasn't quick after all) is: Can it be done, and are either of my two approaches feasible? Any suggestions or tips? Thanks, Mark Richards PS please CC me if possible. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/