From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: David Masover <ninja@slaphack.com>
Subject: Re: reiser4 can now bear with filled fs, looks stable to me...
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 16:46:34 -0500
Message-ID: <44CE7A3A.2010503@slaphack.com>
References: <20060730223755.GA14386@hermes.uziel.local> <44CD4127.9010202@slaphack.com> <11910177823.20060731232849@wp.pl>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Return-path: <reiserfs-list-return-29339-reiserfs=m.gmane.org@namesys.com>
list-help: <mailto:reiserfs-list-help@namesys.com>
list-unsubscribe: <mailto:reiserfs-list-unsubscribe@namesys.com>
list-post: <mailto:reiserfs-list@namesys.com>
Errors-To: flx@namesys.com
In-Reply-To: <11910177823.20060731232849@wp.pl>
List-Id: <reiserfs-devel.vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
To: =?UTF-8?B?TWFjaWVqIFNvxYJ0eXNpYWs=?= <pysiak.satriani@wp.pl>
Cc: "reiserfs-list@namesys.com" <reiserfs-list@namesys.com>

Maciej So=C5=82tysiak wrote:
> Hello David,

> - it is more expensive to:
>   a) succeed at kernel inclusion
>   b) argue
>   c) waste time

You must be new here...

Options B and C are all that ever seems to happen when reiserfs-list and=20
lkml collide.

Is option A possible?  The speed of a nonworking program is irrelevant.=20
  The cost-effectiveness of an impossible solution is irrelevant.