From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: I request inclusion of reiser4 in the mainline kernel Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2005 10:22:47 +0100 Message-ID: <20050917092247.GA13992@infradead.org> References: <432AFB44.9060707@namesys.com> <20050916174028.GA32745@infradead.org> <432B1F84.3000902@namesys.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Errors-To: flx@namesys.com Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <432B1F84.3000902@namesys.com> List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Hans Reiser Cc: Christoph Hellwig , Andrew Morton , Linus Torvalds , LKML , ReiserFS List On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 12:39:48PM -0700, Hans Reiser wrote: > Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > >additinoal comment is that the code is very messy, very different > >from normal kernel style, full of indirections and thus hard to read. > > > > Most of my customers remark that Namesys code is head and shoulders > above the rest of the kernel code. So yes, it is different. In > particular, they cite the XFS code as being so incredibly hard to read > that its unreadability is worth hundreds of thousands of dollars in > license fees for me. That's cash received, from persons who read it > all, not commentary made idly. It's very different from kernel style, and it's hard to read for us kernel developers. And yes, I don't think XFS is the most easy to read code either, quite contrary. But it's at least half a magnitude less bad than reiser4 code..