Hi,
I'm not that kernel hacker but a user of reiserfs, maybe my comments are
inappropriate...
The code duplication in fs/reiserfs/ is a bug. But does this bug harm anything
but maybe somewhat performance? If it does not harm, there is no reason for
reiserfs not to make in pre-2.4 kernels, because those bugs can be fixed. The
win is at least an as EXPERIMENTAL marked journaling filesystem, and people who
use it are warned. The loss would be (beside other issues) superiority of other
OSs regarding startup time after an unclean shutdown, preventing reiserfs to be
used in large servers. We know why we like and need startup times of 1..2
minutes instead of 10..20 hours...
Xuân. :o)
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Mar 2000, Alexander Viro wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 12 Mar 2000, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> >
> > > Before slaming someone, take a moment to look at the patch.
> >
> > You bet that I did.
>
> I'm sorry for coming off so strongly.
>
> [snip]
> > > They removed the VFS bastardazation. :)
> >
> > Yeah, except that if you will look intofs/reiserfs you will see a lot of
> > code that was obviously unmaintained for a year or so. And interating with
> > VFS.
> >
> > In other words, if "Nobody cares if reiserfs is totally out of sync with
> > VFS" is a valid position - fine. But then I'ld like to have that statement
> > written and signed in blood. By Hans and his team. I don't think that
> > such position is valid for anything included into the tree. Moreover, it
> > pretty much makes inclusion into the tree meaningless.
>
> Try to be easier on them. I certantly couldn't design a sophisticated tree
> based file system, mange users, fix bugs, AND track the Linux kernel API
> at the same time. :)
-
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