Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 12 Mar 2000 22:56:58 -0500 (EST) | From | Alexander Viro <> | Subject | Re: patch: reiserfs for 2.3.49 |
| |
On Mon, 13 Mar 2000, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> That's not nice indeed but it's also obviously safe and non very > intrusive. It's definitely _not_ the "worst thing one can do to the VFS" > IMHO :).
Sigh... Once more: if reiserfs being badly out of sync with VFS is OK I see no point in having it in the tree. Otherwise I see a _lot_ of problems, since it's *badly* out-of-sync. For values of badly greater than one year. Maintaining this code is going to be a nightmare. And I have a nasty feeling that whoever will do VFS work will end up with either 1) saying "fsck it, I don't care for breakage" (see above) _or_ 2) having to do full analysis of locking/races/etc. in the damn thing, figuring out whether some smart-arse code in depth of journal handling actually does race prevention, etc. and then doing update.
I'm sorry, but IMO it's the work for people who propose the inclusion of patch. _Before_ such inclusion.
- 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/
| |