From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jens Axboe Subject: Re: I request inclusion of reiser4 in the mainline kernel Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 14:45:18 +0200 Message-ID: <20050919124516.GM10845@suse.de> References: <432AFB44.9060707@namesys.com> <200509171415.50454.vda@ilport.com.ua> <200509180934.50789.chriswhite@gentoo.org> <200509181321.23211.vda@ilport.com.ua> <20050918102658.GB22210@infradead.org> <1127079524.8932.21.camel@localhost.localdomain> <432E4786.7010001@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: <432E4786.7010001@namesys.com> List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Hans Reiser Cc: Alan Cox , thenewme91@gmail.com, Christoph Hellwig , Denis Vlasenko , chriswhite@gentoo.org, LKML , ReiserFS List On Sun, Sep 18 2005, Hans Reiser wrote: > Linux kernel code is getting better, and Andrew Morton's code is > especially good, but for the most part it's unnecessarily hard to read. > Look at the elevator code for instance. Ugh. That's pretty bold, coming from someone who cannot even figure out how to follow the style guidelines of the kernel. The elevator core api is so trivial, I don't believe you find this hard to read. The individual io schedulers tend to have comments in functions that aren't immediately obvious. So I'm curious, what do part makes you go 'ugh'? So please explain or refrain from making stupid unwarranted comments about other peoples code. > That is why I just say "make it easy to read and I don't care how you do > that so long as it works." Then why do you insist on commenting your code differently than everyone else ('everyone' means the kernel here, since that is your target)? -- Jens Axboe