[PATCH] Some infrastructure work for virtual file system (now on phab)

Manuel Klimek klimek at google.com
Fri Feb 14 10:50:01 PST 2014


On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 7:14 PM, Rafael EspĂ­ndola <
rafael.espindola at gmail.com> wrote:

> > There is no significant difference on the client side (instead of
> calling a
> > method on the AFS, it calls a method on the FileDescriptor), it may
> simplify
> > a bit some functions to just accept a FileDescriptor if they only need
> such
> > a thing (instead of always passing an AFS + FD), and the multiplex
> > implementation becomes simpler.
>
> The only issue I have with it is that code using the virtual fs then
> becomes quiet a bit different from code that is not using it. Code not
> using it has a FD that is a simple POD that is copied by value. Code
> using the virtual fs has a much more complex object that needs to be
> passed by pointer.
>
> A filesystem could even use a virtual FD implementation if it wanted
> to. Just make the FD it receives an index into a table. That way using
> a virtual file per file object is an implementation detail of that
> file system.
>

That's what I would have expected, too.


> In the end, I guess it is a question of preference. Since I have no
> better objections than "it looks odd", it is fine to go that way if
> people actually using the feature prefer it. Maybe then just call it a
> FileObject instead of a FileDescriptor to avoid confusion with the
> simple ints we are used to?
>

+1


>
> Cheers,
> Rafael
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-commits/attachments/20140214/7bc6a4c6/attachment.html>


More information about the cfe-commits mailing list