![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 12:39:48PM -0700, Hans Reiser wrote: > Most of my customers remark that Namesys code is head and shoulders > above the rest of the kernel code. So yes, it is different. In > particular, they cite the XFS code as being so incredibly hard to read > that its unreadability is worth hundreds of thousands of dollars in > license fees for me. That's cash received, from persons who read it > all, not commentary made idly. > > May I suggest that you work on the XFS code instead? Surely with all of > this energy you have, you could improve XFS a lot before it gets > accepted into the kernel. > > As for the indirections, if you figure out how to make VFS indirections > easy to follow, the same technique should be applicable to Reiser4, and > I will be happy to fix it. > > (Note for the record: I actually think XFS acceptance was delayed too > long, and I think that XFS is a great filesystem, but a rhetorical point > needed to be made......) Well my experience with XFS for about 6 months using 2.6 kernels has been about as good as my experience with reiserfs 3.6 back when 2.4 was fairly new. That's why I run ext3. I don't need my filesystem locking up, leaking memory all over the place, causing processes to be killed byt the out of memory handler, etc. I will stick with what works all the time. Performance and nifty features are fun, but only when they don't break your system. Len Sorensen - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-09-16 22:53 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||