Re: reiser4 plugins

[Nick Piggin]

Markus Törnqvist wrote:

> I can't find the original post I'm thinking about but
> http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/5/16/68 says essentially the same thing.

The scheduler is being improved for better behaviour on complex
topologies like multi core + NUMA and multi level NUMA systems.
If Con's work had gone in first, then conversely these improvements
would have had to wait.

> There's also my all-time favorite, http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/3/14/4

What's wrong with that? The slowdown is due to the workload
becoming disk bound. The reasons are still not entirely clear,
but I don't think it is a recent (ie. 2.6) regression (or even
a regression at all IIRC).

> The lack of QA seems appalling here, and I'm sure Reiser has had
> to do more of that for DARPA than most linux kernel hackers around.

And what QA would you have preferred?

I think if you are resorting to bringing up all time favourite
blunders when trying to justify Reiser4 being included, then
that is a sign right there that something is fundamentally wrong
(if not with the code, then with your line of thought0

And note my email has nothing to do with any *real* argument for
or against R4.

Thanks,
Nick

Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com 
-
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/