Re: [PATCH] fix problems related to journaling in Reiserfs

[Hans Reiser <reiser@namesys.com>]

3.6 will always be supported for bug fixes, but will not receive new
features if I can help it.  It is stable supported code, and should be
kept that way.

Regarding the journaling implementation, let's see what Chris says
before I comment.

Hans

michael chang wrote:

>On 8/31/05, Hifumi Hisashi <hifumi.hisashi@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote:
>  
>
>>michael chang wrote:
>>
>>    
>>
>>>Surely we don't want this.  Look at the papers on Namesys's websites,
>>>about the atomicaty and the banking example.  But that's just my
>>>personal opinion.  Besides, I believe it's more likely that usually
>>>the power gets lost than the SCSI or IDE cable gets disconnected,
>>>AFAIK...
>>>
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>    A write()  syscall with the O_SYNC flag must ensure that not only
>>file data block
>>but also journal (meta-data update) are written to a disk when this
>>syscall end.
>>   But, current implementation of Reiserfs does not do that. If a system
>>crashes,
>>a filesystem recovers from the journal transaction log. But, Reiserfs
>>may not
>>recover in some cases.
>>   I checked other filesystems like ext3, jfs, xfs. Those filesystem
>>write transactions
>>to a disk everytime  write()  with the O_SYNC is performed. In those
>>filesystem,
>>I have no trouble mentioned above.
>>
>>  I should say, the Reiserfs would be "un"reliable filesystem..........
>>    
>>
>
>That said, AFAIK, Reiser(fs) 3.6 patches are somewhat redundant
>(although if they solve a "problem", sure, go ahead) since this
>funcationality should be present in Reiser4 in one form or another --
>I don't know if Reiser3.6 is still "supported" per se, anyways.  But
>don't bash on me -- I'm not subscribed to the reiserfs-dev nor
>linux-fsdevel lists, so don't bash me for saying something I shouldn't
>say otherwise (I don't see how removing these lists from the replies
>would help, but if that is requested, let me know).
>
>  
>