Re: silent semantic changes in reiser4 (brief attempt to documentthe idea ofwhat reiser4 wants to do with metafiles and why

[Alan Cox]

On Gwe, 2004-09-10 at 18:48, Hans Reiser wrote:
> Is there a technical basis for your claim that we have trouble with disk 
> errors?
> 
> Do you mean badblocks support or what?

I mean probability of gettng your data back after a disk loses data. And
the technical basis for my claims is twofold - painful experience is
one, and shooting random blocks of zeros onto a disk and run fsck tools
is another. 

> I think it would be reasonable for people to say that our approach 
> currently has bugs, we should turn metafiles off until we make the bugs 
> go away.

Well reiserfs4 is a lot more than metafiles and new vfs layer concepts.
Clearly those parts of the the fs that don't require core fs changes
belong in the kernel as soon as everyone is happy they are clean enough
and look correct.

Metafiles and openat() are an argument we can all have later.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/