From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-oi0-f67.google.com ([209.85.218.67]:32888 "EHLO mail-oi0-f67.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751623AbcILPxP (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Sep 2016 11:53:15 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH] logfs: remove from tree To: dedekind1@gmail.com, Christoph Hellwig , viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, joern@logfs.org, prasadjoshi.linux@gmail.com References: <1473599062-23550-1-git-send-email-hch@lst.de> <1473663301.2342.442.camel@gmail.com> Cc: logfs@logfs.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org From: "Austin S. Hemmelgarn" Message-ID: <707145aa-37d5-6374-895f-d46f68f34ae6@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2016 11:53:04 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1473663301.2342.442.camel@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 2016-09-12 02:55, Artem Bityutskiy wrote: > On Sun, 2016-09-11 at 15:04 +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: >> Logfs was introduced to the kernel in 2009, and hasn't seen any non >> drive-by changes since 2012, while having lots of unsolved issues >> including the complete lack of error handling, with more and more >> issues popping up without any fixes. >> >> The logfs.org domain has been bouncing from a mail, and the >> maintainer >> on the non-logfs.org domain hasn't repsonded to past queries either. >> >> Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig > > Back in 2008 logfs and UBIFS were in sort of competing projects. I > remember we inspected logfs code and tested it - we did not find proper > wear-levelling and bad block handling, we did not see proper error > handling, and it exploded when we were running relatively simple tests. > We indicated this here in a very humble way to avoid the "conflict of > interest" perseption: > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2008/3/31/117 > > I did not follow logfs since then, but I think there wasn't much > development since then and all these issue are still there. I mean, > unless I am horribly mistaken, logfs does not really have the basic > features of a flash file system and there is no point keeping it in the > tree and consuming people's time maintaining it. > FWIW, I tried testing it about a year ago, and got similar results both from the tests and from trying to contact the maintainer.