From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754076AbXDWRkq (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Apr 2007 13:40:46 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754087AbXDWRkq (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Apr 2007 13:40:46 -0400 Received: from smtp1.linux-foundation.org ([65.172.181.25]:38946 "EHLO smtp1.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754076AbXDWRkp (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Apr 2007 13:40:45 -0400 Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 10:40:42 -0700 From: Andrew Morton To: Eric Hopper Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Question about Reiser4 Message-Id: <20070423104042.87b50bb3.akpm@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: <20070423135216.GA2744@omnifarious.org> References: <20070423020046.GA28477@omnifarious.org> <462C2E5B.1080008@redhat.com> <462C4858.3050006@redhat.com> <462C4D32.4000909@redhat.com> <462C5034.9090403@redhat.com> <20070423010445.454eda63.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20070423135216.GA2744@omnifarious.org> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 2.2.7 (GTK+ 2.8.6; i686-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 06:52:16 -0700 Eric Hopper wrote: > On Mon, Apr 23, 2007 at 01:04:45AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > The namesys engineers continue to maintain reiser4 and I continue to > > receive patches for it. > > > > Right now I'd say that the main blockages for reiser4 are a) the developers > > aren't presently asking for inclusion (afaik) and b) lack of reviewing > > effort from other kernel developers. > > If someone else started asking for it to be included and responded to > requests for the various code changes required to increase its quality > to the required level, wouldn't that be enough? Basically, if someone > forked it. > > Or does it specifically have to be namesys engineers? That's not where the problem lies - the namesys guys are responsive and play well with others. But they haven't received any "requests for the various code changes" in over a year. And I'm in the same boat as most everyone else: I haven't looked at the reiser4 code in ages. Right now I don't have anything like a list of outstanding technical issues. To get it unstuck we'd need a general push, get people looking at and testing the code, get the vendors to have a serious think about it, etc. We could do that - it'd require that the namesys people (and I) start making threatening noises about merging it, I guess. Or we could move all the reiser4 code into kernel/sched.c - that seems to get people fired up.