Re: [PATCH 3/7] arch: sh: remove ReiserFS from defconfig

Peter Lafreniere
2023-10-24T17:45:56Z

On Tue, Oct 24, 2023 at 12:46, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> Hi Peter!
>
> On Mon, 2023-09-18 at 17:56 +0000, Peter Lafreniere wrote:
>
> > ReiserFS has been deprecated for a year and a half, yet is still built
> > as part of a defconfig kernel.
> >
> > According to commit eb103a51640e ("reiserfs: Deprecate reiserfs"), the
> > filesystem is slated to be removed in 2025. Remove it from the defconfig
> > profiles now, as part of its deprecation process.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Peter Lafreniere peter@n8pjl.ca
> > ---
> > arch/sh/configs/landisk_defconfig | 1 -
> > arch/sh/configs/titan_defconfig | 1 -
> > 2 files changed, 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/sh/configs/landisk_defconfig b/arch/sh/configs/landisk_defconfig
> > index 541082090918..af1ab25227e3 100644
> > --- a/arch/sh/configs/landisk_defconfig
> > +++ b/arch/sh/configs/landisk_defconfig
> > @@ -94,7 +94,6 @@ CONFIG_USB_SISUSBVGA=m
> > CONFIG_EXT2_FS=y
> > CONFIG_EXT3_FS=y
> > # CONFIG_EXT3_DEFAULTS_TO_ORDERED is not set
> > -CONFIG_REISERFS_FS=y
> > CONFIG_ISO9660_FS=m
> > CONFIG_MSDOS_FS=y
> > CONFIG_VFAT_FS=y
> > diff --git a/arch/sh/configs/titan_defconfig b/arch/sh/configs/titan_defconfig
> > index 871092753591..50e378adc4c5 100644
> > --- a/arch/sh/configs/titan_defconfig
> > +++ b/arch/sh/configs/titan_defconfig
> > @@ -221,7 +221,6 @@ CONFIG_EXT2_FS=y
> > CONFIG_EXT3_FS=y
> > # CONFIG_EXT3_DEFAULTS_TO_ORDERED is not set
> > # CONFIG_EXT3_FS_XATTR is not set
> > -CONFIG_REISERFS_FS=m
> > CONFIG_XFS_FS=m
> > CONFIG_FUSE_FS=m
> > CONFIG_ISO9660_FS=m
>
>
> What has been the feedback so far on this? Do most maintainer remove it or not?

AFAICT, it's been picked up by mips and powerpc. I thought that it got picked up by UML too,
but I can't find any signs of that actually happening.

>
> I don't have a strong opinion on this, but I tend to keep it in defconfig until
> ReiserFS has been completely removed from the kernel.

Is convenience more important than a slim defconfig? I don't think it is in this case,
but Geert (for example) thinks it is. In the end the fs will be gone for good, and
none of this will really have mattered.

>
> Adrian

Cheers,
Peter