lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Apr]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 0/7] OMFS filesystem version 3
On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 21:32:48 -0400 Bob Copeland <me@bobcopeland.com> wrote:

> On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 04:10:14PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 23:49:20 +0100 Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote:
> > > > This filesystem has only 20 users.
> >
> > None of that means that merging this filesystem is the best decision.
>
> Well, 20 may have been aiming just a tad low. I'd never make it in sales.
> Here are the stats from linux-karma.sf.net:
>
> - most recent release, for 2.6.25: 36 downloads since 3/16/08
> - # subscribers on mailing list: 39 [1]
> - most # of downloads of a given release: 252 (May-Oct 2007) [2]
>
> [1] Some subscribers may not use the FS at all since there is also
> software for using the ethernet interface. Both are discussed on
> the list.
>
> [2] I doubt that 252 d/ls translates to that many _current_ users; a
> year is a long time in consumer electronics. I don't have stats on
> unique IPs.
>
> I'm unaware of ReplayTV users - one guy contacted me once and then
> disappeared.

OK.

> > Merging a new filesystem has costs - I don't need to enumerate them. Do
> > the benefits of OMFS exceed them?
>
> You guys would know best. I can see both arguments...

Well as I say - no strong opinions either way here. It just seems a bit
odd to burden the kernel with an additional fs for such a small user base
when either options exist.

OTOH when we merge a new fs that also has the side-effect of increasing the
active developer base - the maintainers of the fs fix other stuff. And
I'll do anything to get some acpi bugs fixed ;)

So.. whatever. I'll keep a look out for v4.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-04-14 07:51    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans