Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> writes:
> > Ahem. I really hate to say it, but I dearly hope that it will not happen
> > right now. IMNSHO reiserfs in the official tree right now is the worst
> > thing one can do to VFS. If my opinion on that is of any interest -
> > please, don't do it.
>
> I'd like to see reiserfs merging done in 2.5.x as well not 2.4. People can
> merge reiserfs and test it with 2.4 happily and it gives both the Reiserfs
> and the kernel folks time to make a better product.
Alan I am in agreement with you, except the bit about how the merge
with reiserfs should happen.
>From all of the arguments I have heard I agree that reiserfs is not as stable,
and as good as ext2. However from other reports reiserfs appears to
work most of the time.
What reiserfs needs is the large scale exposure it will as part of the
kernel. For the whole 2.4 time frame reiserfs should likely be marked
EXPERIMENTAL, and anything else we can do to dissuade people from using it.
The small amount of VFS changes should certainly go before,
or be adopted before inclusion. We should encourage the reiserfs
people to clean up as many of the obvious warts that can be seen
before it goes in.
I guess my argument for reiserfs is pretty much same as the argument
against binary only modules, or the argument for splitting the kernel
tarball in pieces. It should be easier to manage and fix reiserfs bugs
that way.
Alan you have already mentioned that reiserfs in 2.4 is inevitable
anyway. Hans is good at marketing and has enough resources behind him
that I have to agree with that sentiment. So lets make certain
reiserfs is managable?.
Of course I still envision the work to make reisefs as stable as ext2
happening 2.5.
Eric
-
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 - 21:00:26 EST