Thanks Greg,

> So it seems pretty different.  But, many things are and you never
> notice because Linux emulation on BSD is so well done.  It may just be
> a matter of putting some glue in the BSD kernel's handling of the
> linux mount syscall.

it would be certainly the cleanest solution, but I do not count
with influencing mainstream kernels as much.

It would be nice if Coda kernel interface would be at least present everywhere
as readily as it is in Linux 2.6 or FreeBSD 5.

> It would be really cool if the coda kernel interface and the arla
> kernel interface could be 64-bit-rationalized/merged and there would
> be one generic kernel interface for complicated userspace-implemented
> filesystems.

It is a bit another issue and I do not believe it either.
Different filesystems have too different needs, and it would be hard
to come to a consent.

There were precedents, like podfuk-smb based on Coda, but it did not become
popular enough to be maintained, and there is no such one now...

I don't know how much Arla's interface differs from Coda. I think we'd have
to deal with incompatibilities, which would slow down both projects.
You see, we have different kernel interfaces on different OS even
for Coda itself. Multiply it by Arla's specialities :)

On the other side, if somebody has the experience and knowledge to try,
why not? If it works out well, there would be more people to maintain the
resulting module!

See you Greg,
--
Ivan