Re: Reiser4 Inclusion

["gmu 2k6" <gmu2006@gmail.com>]

the last time I've tried Reiser4 in -mm (4 - 6 weeks ago
approxamitely) I managed to oops by doing:
$ tar xfjv linux-2.6.17.tar.bz2
$ sync

I was calling sync because I was curious as to why XFS seemed to sync
all the time and look and feel slow when compared to ext3. So I
thought let's see what Reiser4 does and the moment I ran sync it
oopsed. Yes this could be a problem with that particular -mm version.

I'd be interested to hear whether this still happens.

no, I'm not making any statements about code quality just curious to
hear as you seem to be using Reiser4 successfully.

On 7/17/06, Grzegorz Kulewski <kangur@polcom.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Jul 2006, Diego Calleja wrote:
> > El Mon, 17 Jul 2006 13:48:02 +0200 (CEST),
> > Grzegorz Kulewski <kangur@polcom.net> escribió:
> >> If someone thinks that Reiser4 is too unstable or evil he can set it to N
> >> and be happy. And if Reiser4 will be abandoned by Namesys and not fixed
> >
> > http://wiki.kernelnewbies.org/WhyReiser4IsNotIn
>
> I already read it when it was posted first. I am reading LKML and
> reiserfs-list for several years and I already read all that arguments,
> flames and so on that were ever pointed here. I think I have enough.
>
> But if we are there:
>
> ""But just include it as experimental code regardless of everything,
> reiser programmers will fix all the problems eventually!"
>
> Well, no and yes. As said, nobody expects reiser 4 to be bug-free, but
> there're some important issues that need to be fixed, the problems is
> that reiser 4 is still working in the important ones. Some of the issues
> fixed in the past included severe design issues, BTW. Others are about
> being well integrated with Linux: duplication of kernel's own
> functionality for no reason, etc. Every piece of code submitted needs to
> have some quality - requesting developers to fix severe issues before
> getting it into the main tree helps to have better code. If you ask
> people people to fix those issues "in the future", they'll be lazy and
> there'll be critical issues around all the time - this has happened in
> Linux in the past. Quality is important, specially under a stable
> development phase. Linux is already being critized a lot for merging new
> features during this stable phase - that criticism happens with the
> current quality control. Imagine what would happen if linux started to
> merge things without caring a bit about what gets merged. Also, consider
> what Reiser 4 is. It's a filesystem, once it gets included in the kernel
> many people WILL use it and will DEPEND on it (your disk format is
> reiser4): Linux needs to ensure that things don't blow up everything."
>
> Why do some people think that users are not already depending on it? They
> are. I don't know how much but I am willing to bet that at least 100
> people. I think that there are some drivers in the kernel that have
> smaller user base.
>
> Keeping Reiser4 out of kernel is even worse (for those users, other users
> that could test this filesystem, for Reiser4 developers and whole
> comunity) than accepting it for a try period with a big fat warning that
> it my be removed if Namesys abandons futher fixing of it (after some time
> to let user migrate).
>
> And any arguments like "if Reiser4 is not in the kernel then people will
> not use and depend on it" are fundamentally flawed IMHO. Everything bad
> that could happen with Reiser4 in the kernel can happen with Reiser4 out
> of it.
>
> It may look like some kernel developers are trying hard not to take
> responsibility for Reiser4 saying that there is very huge difference
> between selecting highly experimental kernel feature that is marked so and
> patching the kernel with it. Sorry but I think there is very little
> difference. And that little difference is only hurting users that want to
> try and test something new.
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Grzegorz Kulewski
>
>
> PS. I really don't want to begin World War 4 about Reiser4. I just think
> that curious people asking from time to time about _current_ Reiser4
> status should not be treated bad because that could make them stop
> testing and giving back to the open source projects.
>
>