On Mon, 13 Mar 2000, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> That's not nice indeed but it's also obviously safe and non very
> intrusive. It's definitely _not_ the "worst thing one can do to the VFS"
> IMHO :).
Sigh... Once more: if reiserfs being badly out of sync with VFS is OK I
see no point in having it in the tree. Otherwise I see a _lot_ of
problems, since it's *badly* out-of-sync. For values of badly greater than
one year. Maintaining this code is going to be a nightmare. And I have a
nasty feeling that whoever will do VFS work will end up with either
1) saying "fsck it, I don't care for breakage" (see above) _or_
2) having to do full analysis of locking/races/etc. in the damn
thing, figuring out whether some smart-arse code in depth of journal
handling actually does race prevention, etc. and then doing update.
I'm sorry, but IMO it's the work for people who propose the inclusion of
patch. _Before_ such inclusion.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Mar 15 2000 - 21:00:23 EST