|
From: Szakacsits S. <sz...@si...> - 2002-12-20 05:56:50
|
On Wed, 11 Dec 2002, Andrew Clausen wrote: > * it should be possible for users of libntfs to pass their own IO > abstraction (rather than using the kernel's or file system's) Just curious, why do you need it? For me it would be very useful for testing/debugging purposes. > * error handling doesn't look to good :/ Yes, more info where errors happen (both DEBUG and release version), debug levels (also both DEBUG and release version) and not mixing stderr/stdout in DEBUG would be really nice(/important). > * progress meters? resizer has and I plan to keep it. However next resizer iteration (cluster relocation support) uses two passes. First for cluster accounting, sanity checks, building some data structures and the second for doing the resize. No way to have one "smooth" progress meter, the rate of the time spent in each pass can be any - of course it could be done with only one if one drastical speed change is acceptable. > * all the functionality of userland tools should be in libntfs, or > perhaps libntfs-mkfs, etc. (This is already on your TODO :) I'm already doing this for the resizer along with the cluster relocation support, as time allows. But I don't plan to do for other things. > I think reiser4's (as opposed to reiser3's!) userland implementation > is fantastic... take a look! > www.namesys.com/snapshots/2002.12.04 Thanks, I will. I'm interested getting an ntfs resizer into parted [it's one of the items in ntfsresize faq] . Szaka |
