From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932490AbcILGzG (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Sep 2016 02:55:06 -0400 Received: from mga05.intel.com ([192.55.52.43]:47781 "EHLO mga05.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754396AbcILGzF (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Sep 2016 02:55:05 -0400 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.30,321,1470726000"; d="scan'208";a="759731583" Message-ID: <1473663301.2342.442.camel@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH] logfs: remove from tree From: Artem Bityutskiy Reply-To: dedekind1@gmail.com To: Christoph Hellwig , viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, joern@logfs.org, prasadjoshi.linux@gmail.com Cc: logfs@logfs.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2016 09:55:01 +0300 In-Reply-To: <1473599062-23550-1-git-send-email-hch@lst.de> References: <1473599062-23550-1-git-send-email-hch@lst.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.20.5 (3.20.5-1.fc24) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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. Artem.