Re: reiser4 for 2.6.27-rc1

["Ryan Hope" <rmh3093@gmail.com>]

Hmmm, removing the plugin support might not be so hard....  I might
have to try this... I am not impressed with btrfs yet.
-Ryan

On Fri, Aug 1, 2008 at 12:25 PM, Theodore Tso <tytso@mit.edu> wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 01, 2008 at 09:49:55AM -0400, Ryan Hope wrote:
>> Why is reiser4 still not in a vanilla kernel for testing. I have had
>> to apply the reiser4 patches from -mm kernels to vanilla based
>> patchset for over a year now. Reiser4 works fine, what will it take to
>> get it included in vanilla? Here is a patch to add reiser4 to
>> 2.6.27-rc1:
>>
>> http://zen-sources.org/files/reiser4-for-2.6.27-rc1.patch
>
> The reasons laid out in these web pages haven't changed.
>
> http://kernelnewbies.org/WhyReiser4IsNotIn
> http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/7/28/180
> http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/engine?do=post_view_flat;post=668645;page=1;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;mh=25;list=linux
>
> Now that Hans is out of the picture, and Namesys seems to have
> collapsed, maybe someone can yank out the plugin architecture that
> Linus and others have objected to, which as near as I could tell was
> part of the Namesys's somewhat dodgy business plan of creating and
> selling (possibly proprietary; not sure what license they were going
> to be under) plugin modules for Reiser4 to make money.  The other
> issue that was raised during the review were some locking issues
> raised by Al Viro, if memory serves correctly.  I'm not sure if they
> were ever fixed; at least initially they were brushed aside by Hans.
>
> In the meantime, people who really like reiser4 might want to take a
> look at btrfs; it has a number of the same design ideas that reiser3/4
> had --- except (a) the filesystem format has support for some advanced
> features that are designed to leapfrog ZFS, (b) the maintainer is not
> a crazy man and works well with other LKML developers (free hint: if
> your code needs to be reviewed to get in, and reviewers are scarce;
> don't insult and abuse the volunteer reviewers as Hans did --- Not a
> good plan!).
>
>                                                - Ted
>