From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751298AbWGRLnY (ORCPT ); Tue, 18 Jul 2006 07:43:24 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751312AbWGRLnY (ORCPT ); Tue, 18 Jul 2006 07:43:24 -0400 Received: from pentafluge.infradead.org ([213.146.154.40]:44520 "EHLO pentafluge.infradead.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751298AbWGRLnX (ORCPT ); Tue, 18 Jul 2006 07:43:23 -0400 Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 12:43:17 +0100 From: Christoph Hellwig To: Jeff Dike Cc: Erik Mouw , Jeff Anderson-Lee , "'fsdevel'" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Reiser4 Inclusion Message-ID: <20060718114317.GA724@infradead.org> Mail-Followup-To: Christoph Hellwig , Jeff Dike , Erik Mouw , Jeff Anderson-Lee , 'fsdevel' , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <44BAFDB7.9050203@calebgray.com> <1153128374.3062.10.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> <000001c6a9b3$81186ea0$ce2a2080@eecs.berkeley.edu> <20060717204804.GA18516@harddisk-recovery.com> <20060718004931.GB8092@ccure.user-mode-linux.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20060718004931.GB8092@ccure.user-mode-linux.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i X-SRS-Rewrite: SMTP reverse-path rewritten from by pentafluge.infradead.org See http://www.infradead.org/rpr.html Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Jul 17, 2006 at 08:49:31PM -0400, Jeff Dike wrote: > On Mon, Jul 17, 2006 at 10:48:04PM +0200, Erik Mouw wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 17, 2006 at 08:13:04AM -0700, Jeff Anderson-Lee wrote: > > > In the past I've wondered why so many experimental FS projects die this > > > death of obscurity in that they only work under FreeBSD or some ancient > > > version of Linux.? I'm beginning to see why that is so:? the Linux core > > > simply changes too fast for it to be a decent FS R&D environment! > > > > That hasn't been a problem for OCFS2 and FUSE (recently merged), and > > also doesn't seem to be a problem for GFS. > > I'm been maintaining a couple (for now) out-of-tree filesystems for > UML, and have seen only minor updates needed over the course of 2.6. > > Complaints about interface churn for filesystems (or anything else, > actually, since an architecture, such as UML, is exposed to nearly the > entire kernel) are imcomprehensible to me. Yes, in 2.6 there were very little changes to the filesystem interface. I count that as a good sign, it means our VFS and common fs helper code has become pretty mature.