On Tue, 13 Jun 2000, Hans Reiser wrote:
> FUD list so far:
> ReiserFS has serious VFS problems [it had unnecessary checks in it, but it was
> said in such a way that we wasted man-weeks reviewing before we could say for
> sure that it was not something more serious, the person who said it is unable to
> come up with anything more than these (now removed) unnecessary checks to
> complain about.]
It was time well spent, as the code ended up much nicer when Vladimir was
done. We shouldn't complain here, we had bugs, and now they are fixed.
[ disk formats ] -- this was largely our fault, we were not clear enough
about our plans.
> ReiserFS should wait for somebody else to do journaling for it, and only then be
> merged in.
This is the real reason I replied, it needs to be cleared up. What I got
from Alan and Stephen's comments was that a common journal layer would be
a good thing. The real issue at hand is the memory pressure interface,
and how the journals interact with the buffer cache.
We have our own end_io handlers for the log blocks, and the only other
copied code is a reiserfs version of unmap_buffer.
Both Stephen and Alan have replied saying they don't intend to force
reiserfs to use the ext3 journal layer. Part of the confusion is my fault
for offering to give the ext3 JFS a try, I'm not going to abandon the
reiserfs journal layer, but I will try to improve it.
> Oooh, that evil Reiser, he didn't like our suggestion that he wait for somebody
> else we pick to do his journaling for him, he's going to be difficult to work
> with and should be kept out of the kernel for that reason.
Hans, please read all the threads again. It was a confusing mess of
flames and misunderstandings, and we certainly didn't do much to keep the
flame/content ratio down.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to email@example.com
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 23 2000 - 21:00:11 EST