From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1030653AbXDWD4E (ORCPT ); Sun, 22 Apr 2007 23:56:04 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1030656AbXDWD4D (ORCPT ); Sun, 22 Apr 2007 23:56:03 -0400 Received: from [70.254.190.220] ([70.254.190.220]:52063 "EHLO server.willdawg" rhost-flags-FAIL-FAIL-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1030653AbXDWD4D (ORCPT ); Sun, 22 Apr 2007 23:56:03 -0400 Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 03:56:00 +0000 (GMT) From: William Heimbigner X-X-Sender: icxcnika@server.thyself To: Rik van Riel cc: Eric Hopper , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Question about Reiser4 In-Reply-To: <462C2E5B.1080008@redhat.com> Message-ID: References: <20070423020046.GA28477@omnifarious.org> <462C2E5B.1080008@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > Eric Hopper wrote: >> I know that this whole effort has been put in disarray by the >> prosecution of Hans Reiser, but I'm curious as to its status. > > It was in disarray well before. Many of the reiser4 features, > like filesystem plugins, make more technical sense in the Linux > VFS, but made more business sense for Namesys as a reiserfs 4 > thing. That lead to a stalemate. > Shouldn't it be a matter of stability though? Benchmarks suggest that reiser4 is a good file system; reiser4 is the successor to the already-accepted reiserfs; we've got experimental ext4 support but no reiser4 support, etc. I don't see why something like plugins should matter. If it works enough to be marked as experimental, why shouldn't reiser4 support be included? It's a pain for me personally to have to patch any kernel with reiser4 support so I can use the reiser4 fs. William Heimbigner icxcnika@mar.tar.cc