Design review for Native File system support - ext2

Josef Söntgen josef.soentgen at ...1...
Mon May 11 16:19:18 CEST 2015

Hello Janani,

* Janani k <3moonu3 at ...9...> [2015-05-10 16:32:49 +0530]:
> I am trying to port an existing native file-system(ext2) to Genode. So, I
> started porting this in the same place as rump_ext2 so that this can be set
> up fast to get quick running of the code. I designed it so as to call our
> native implementation calls instead of rump calls. To get the block
> sessions working and basic ext2 functionalities checking, I did quick code
> work to get it up and running. Sorry didn't follow the
> Genode specifications in coding. I want get suggestions & feedback's on
> this design and then I will align code to Genode specifications and move
> further. I am attaching the patch file. And I will list out major things I
> did in this work to give an overview.

I toke a brief look and also tried to build your code. Sadly, I am not
able to compile it because a few source and header files are missing
from your patch file. It would make reviewing the code easier for us if
you could provide the whole patch-set as a structured series of commits
in a git repository instead of a patch file that has to be applied
manually. Also, although incorporating your work directly into dde_rump
makes it easier for you to test the implementation it makes it more
cumbersome for us to follow the process (especially in this case where
the interesting bits are missing). For example, putting the functions
for reading and write chunks from a block device into the File_system
namespace is questionable and the reason for doing so is not clear.

That being said, I think you are on the right track by seperating
the code handling the Ext2 processing from the File_system session
frontend. For the time being I would post-pone reviewing your work in
more detail and I would really appreciate it if you would clean up
your code a bit.


More information about the users mailing list