Re: [RFC]swapfso and "ioctl" function for filesystems

[Robert Millan]

On Thu, Sep 04, 2008 at 11:27:20PM +0200, phcoder wrote:
> > 
> > Could this be made more transparent?  For example, with a variable.
> > 
> Here perhaps it could be. But in other usage cases like putting the dos
> boot files into the right place or doing swapfso it couldn't.

We intentionally don't support filesystem writing.  This was discussed before,
I think.

> > Also, I'm worried that this occupies core image size for non-critical
> > functionality.
> > 
> If filesystem module doesn't use this feature it just adds a zero
> pointer to grub_fs structure.

Yes, but what if it does?

> may be implemented in an extra module
> (like ntfscomp) or there could be 2 modules for the same filesystem:
> basic and advanced one.

2 modules for the same filesystem can lead to trouble;  I don't think GRUB
can handle this situation properly (for example, if you need ext2.mod to
access $prefix, how to you replace it with the new module, which needs to be
loaded precisely from $prefix?).

An extra module would be saner, IMO.

-- 
Robert Millan

  The DRM opt-in fallacy: "Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and
  how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we
  still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all."