Re: [PATCH 0/7] OMFS filesystem version 3

[Jeff Garzik <jeff@garzik.org>]

Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 09:16:39AM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
>> I think the exceed them quite easily. The costs are almost nil, while
>> merging this provides another nice example fs (and one much easier to
>> follow than ext*) for hardware that does have a few users and will no
>> doubt get many more
>>
>> I wasn't aware Linus had introduced a new rule required 500 people sign
>> up to use a feature before it gets added ?
> 
> I'm also very surprised by this, especially as it seems to be applied
> very selectively.  This filesystems is an almost 0 maintainance burden
> unlike a lot of really crappy driver we're shoving in constantly.
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> 

Agreed.  And adding to the pile-on, I think that we should be 
_encouraging_ rather than discouraging innovative new filesystems.

I rather dislike limiting filesystem maintenance to the "old guard".

See comments like those on Evgeniy's blog: 
http://tservice.net.ru/~s0mbre/blog/devel/fs/2008_04_14.html

Sure we do not need to merge every filesystem under the sun, or things 
that much better belong in userspace (sshfs), but AFAICS there is not a 
huge increase in maintenance cost to add a new kernel filesystem.

	Jeff