reiser4 for 2.6.27-rc1

reiser4 for 2.6.27-rc1

[Ryan Hope]

Why is reiser4 still not in a vanilla kernel for testing. I have had
to apply the reiser4 patches from -mm kernels to vanilla based
patchset for over a year now. Reiser4 works fine, what will it take to
get it included in vanilla? Here is a patch to add reiser4 to
2.6.27-rc1:

http://zen-sources.org/files/reiser4-for-2.6.27-rc1.patch

-Ryan

Re: reiser4 for 2.6.27-rc1

[Theodore Tso]

On Fri, Aug 01, 2008 at 09:49:55AM -0400, Ryan Hope wrote:
> Why is reiser4 still not in a vanilla kernel for testing. I have had
> to apply the reiser4 patches from -mm kernels to vanilla based
> patchset for over a year now. Reiser4 works fine, what will it take to
> get it included in vanilla? Here is a patch to add reiser4 to
> 2.6.27-rc1:
> 
> http://zen-sources.org/files/reiser4-for-2.6.27-rc1.patch

The reasons laid out in these web pages haven't changed.

http://kernelnewbies.org/WhyReiser4IsNotIn
http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/7/28/180
http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/engine?do=post_view_flat;post=668645;page=1;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;mh=25;list=linux

Now that Hans is out of the picture, and Namesys seems to have
collapsed, maybe someone can yank out the plugin architecture that
Linus and others have objected to, which as near as I could tell was
part of the Namesys's somewhat dodgy business plan of creating and
selling (possibly proprietary; not sure what license they were going
to be under) plugin modules for Reiser4 to make money.  The other
issue that was raised during the review were some locking issues
raised by Al Viro, if memory serves correctly.  I'm not sure if they
were ever fixed; at least initially they were brushed aside by Hans.  

In the meantime, people who really like reiser4 might want to take a
look at btrfs; it has a number of the same design ideas that reiser3/4
had --- except (a) the filesystem format has support for some advanced
features that are designed to leapfrog ZFS, (b) the maintainer is not
a crazy man and works well with other LKML developers (free hint: if
your code needs to be reviewed to get in, and reviewers are scarce;
don't insult and abuse the volunteer reviewers as Hans did --- Not a
good plan!).

						- Ted

Re: reiser4 for 2.6.27-rc1

[Ryan Hope]

Hmmm, removing the plugin support might not be so hard....  I might
have to try this... I am not impressed with btrfs yet.
-Ryan

On Fri, Aug 1, 2008 at 12:25 PM, Theodore Tso <tytso@mit.edu> wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 01, 2008 at 09:49:55AM -0400, Ryan Hope wrote:
>> Why is reiser4 still not in a vanilla kernel for testing. I have had
>> to apply the reiser4 patches from -mm kernels to vanilla based
>> patchset for over a year now. Reiser4 works fine, what will it take to
>> get it included in vanilla? Here is a patch to add reiser4 to
>> 2.6.27-rc1:
>>
>> http://zen-sources.org/files/reiser4-for-2.6.27-rc1.patch
>
> The reasons laid out in these web pages haven't changed.
>
> http://kernelnewbies.org/WhyReiser4IsNotIn
> http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/7/28/180
> http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/engine?do=post_view_flat;post=668645;page=1;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;mh=25;list=linux
>
> Now that Hans is out of the picture, and Namesys seems to have
> collapsed, maybe someone can yank out the plugin architecture that
> Linus and others have objected to, which as near as I could tell was
> part of the Namesys's somewhat dodgy business plan of creating and
> selling (possibly proprietary; not sure what license they were going
> to be under) plugin modules for Reiser4 to make money.  The other
> issue that was raised during the review were some locking issues
> raised by Al Viro, if memory serves correctly.  I'm not sure if they
> were ever fixed; at least initially they were brushed aside by Hans.
>
> In the meantime, people who really like reiser4 might want to take a
> look at btrfs; it has a number of the same design ideas that reiser3/4
> had --- except (a) the filesystem format has support for some advanced
> features that are designed to leapfrog ZFS, (b) the maintainer is not
> a crazy man and works well with other LKML developers (free hint: if
> your code needs to be reviewed to get in, and reviewers are scarce;
> don't insult and abuse the volunteer reviewers as Hans did --- Not a
> good plan!).
>
>                                                - Ted
>

Re: reiser4 for 2.6.27-rc1

[Theodore Tso]

On Fri, Aug 01, 2008 at 12:34:53PM -0400, Ryan Hope wrote:
> Hmmm, removing the plugin support might not be so hard....  I might
> have to try this... I am not impressed with btrfs yet.

Well, if you're going to work on reiser4 (and I think there were other
people who had also expressed interest/plans to work on it; you might
try doing a search on the various mailing lists so you can coordinate
with them and avoid duplicating work), my suggestion to you would be
to find the comments that were made by the reviewers way back when,
and make sure those comments have been addressed.

Then, re-requests a code review, and promise that you won't abuse, and
insult the integrity and impugn the motivations of the reviewers like
Hans did, and hopefully after they review the code, fix those problems
as well.  Then you can try resubmitting for inclusion.

Best regards,

    	      	    	 	    	      - Ted

Re: reiser4 for 2.6.27-rc1

[Ric Wheeler]

Theodore Tso wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 01, 2008 at 12:34:53PM -0400, Ryan Hope wrote:
>   
>> Hmmm, removing the plugin support might not be so hard....  I might
>> have to try this... I am not impressed with btrfs yet.
>>     
>
> Well, if you're going to work on reiser4 (and I think there were other
> people who had also expressed interest/plans to work on it; you might
> try doing a search on the various mailing lists so you can coordinate
> with them and avoid duplicating work), my suggestion to you would be
> to find the comments that were made by the reviewers way back when,
> and make sure those comments have been addressed.
>
> Then, re-requests a code review, and promise that you won't abuse, and
> insult the integrity and impugn the motivations of the reviewers like
> Hans did, and hopefully after they review the code, fix those problems
> as well.  Then you can try resubmitting for inclusion.
>
> Best regards,
>
>     	      	    	 	    	      - Ted
>   

My most up to date information is that Edward is still actively working 
on reiser4....

ric

Re: reiser4 for 2.6.27-rc1

[Edward Shishkin]

Ric Wheeler wrote:
> Theodore Tso wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 01, 2008 at 12:34:53PM -0400, Ryan Hope wrote:
>>  

Hi, I am here :)
Join our mailing list:

http://vger.kernel.org/vger-lists.html#reiserfs-devel
http://marc.info/?l=reiserfs-devel&r=1&w=2

There are many interesting tasks to resolve/investigate..

>>> Hmmm, removing the plugin support might not be so hard....  I might
>>> have to try this...

Please, don't try to do this.

I am working on the plugin design document. It will be ready
approximately in September. I believe that it'll address all the
mentioned complaints.

>>> I am not impressed with btrfs yet.
>>>     
>>
>> Well, if you're going to work on reiser4 (and I think there were other
>> people who had also expressed interest/plans to work on it; you might
>> try doing a search on the various mailing lists so you can coordinate
>> with them and avoid duplicating work), my suggestion to you would be
>> to find the comments that were made by the reviewers way back when,
>> and make sure those comments have been addressed.
>>
>> Then, re-requests a code review, and promise that you won't abuse, and
>> insult the integrity and impugn the motivations of the reviewers

Well, Ted, I'll promise ;)
We'll adhere strictly the propositional logic in the review thread..

Thanks,
Edward.

>> like
>> Hans did, and hopefully after they review the code, fix those problems
>> as well.  Then you can try resubmitting for inclusion.
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>>                                              - Ted
>>   
>
> My most up to date information is that Edward is still actively
> working on reiser4....
>
> ric
>
>

Re: reiser4 for 2.6.27-rc1

[Ryan Hope]

Can you explain a little more what this "plugin design documentation"
actually is and how it supposed to help?
-Ryan

On Fri, Aug 1, 2008 at 6:40 PM, Edward Shishkin
<edward.shishkin@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ric Wheeler wrote:
>> Theodore Tso wrote:
>>> On Fri, Aug 01, 2008 at 12:34:53PM -0400, Ryan Hope wrote:
>>>
>
> Hi, I am here :)
> Join our mailing list:
>
> http://vger.kernel.org/vger-lists.html#reiserfs-devel
> http://marc.info/?l=reiserfs-devel&r=1&w=2
>
> There are many interesting tasks to resolve/investigate..
>
>>>> Hmmm, removing the plugin support might not be so hard....  I might
>>>> have to try this...
>
> Please, don't try to do this.
>
> I am working on the plugin design document. It will be ready
> approximately in September. I believe that it'll address all the
> mentioned complaints.
>
>>>> I am not impressed with btrfs yet.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Well, if you're going to work on reiser4 (and I think there were other
>>> people who had also expressed interest/plans to work on it; you might
>>> try doing a search on the various mailing lists so you can coordinate
>>> with them and avoid duplicating work), my suggestion to you would be
>>> to find the comments that were made by the reviewers way back when,
>>> and make sure those comments have been addressed.
>>>
>>> Then, re-requests a code review, and promise that you won't abuse, and
>>> insult the integrity and impugn the motivations of the reviewers
>
> Well, Ted, I'll promise ;)
> We'll adhere strictly the propositional logic in the review thread..
>
> Thanks,
> Edward.
>
>>> like
>>> Hans did, and hopefully after they review the code, fix those problems
>>> as well.  Then you can try resubmitting for inclusion.
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>>
>>>                                              - Ted
>>>
>>
>> My most up to date information is that Edward is still actively
>> working on reiser4....
>>
>> ric
>>
>>
>
>
>

Re: reiser4 for 2.6.27-rc1

[Edward Shishkin]

Ryan Hope wrote:
> Can you explain a little more what this "plugin design documentation"
> actually is and how it supposed to help?
> -Ryan
>
>   

This document is to define plugins, etc primitives (like conversion
of run-time objects) used in reiser4, and to describe all reiser4
interfaces, so that it will be clear that VFS functionality is not
duplicated, there are not VFS layers inside reiser4, etc. (many items
are devoted to interaction between VFS and reiser4).
I am sorry, but these concepts (which are very central) have not been
worked out carefully enough at the moment of this 3-year-old review:
http://kerneltrap.org/node/5330

Edward.

> On Fri, Aug 1, 2008 at 6:40 PM, Edward Shishkin
> <edward.shishkin@gmail.com> wrote:
>   
>> Ric Wheeler wrote:
>>     
>>> Theodore Tso wrote:
>>>       
>>>> On Fri, Aug 01, 2008 at 12:34:53PM -0400, Ryan Hope wrote:
>>>>
>>>>         
>> Hi, I am here :)
>> Join our mailing list:
>>
>> http://vger.kernel.org/vger-lists.html#reiserfs-devel
>> http://marc.info/?l=reiserfs-devel&r=1&w=2
>>
>> There are many interesting tasks to resolve/investigate..
>>
>>     
>>>>> Hmmm, removing the plugin support might not be so hard....  I might
>>>>> have to try this...
>>>>>           
>> Please, don't try to do this.
>>
>> I am working on the plugin design document. It will be ready
>> approximately in September. I believe that it'll address all the
>> mentioned complaints.
>>
>>     
>>>>> I am not impressed with btrfs yet.
>>>>>
>>>>>           
>>>> Well, if you're going to work on reiser4 (and I think there were other
>>>> people who had also expressed interest/plans to work on it; you might
>>>> try doing a search on the various mailing lists so you can coordinate
>>>> with them and avoid duplicating work), my suggestion to you would be
>>>> to find the comments that were made by the reviewers way back when,
>>>> and make sure those comments have been addressed.
>>>>
>>>> Then, re-requests a code review, and promise that you won't abuse, and
>>>> insult the integrity and impugn the motivations of the reviewers
>>>>         
>> Well, Ted, I'll promise ;)
>> We'll adhere strictly the propositional logic in the review thread..
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Edward.
>>
>>     
>>>> like
>>>> Hans did, and hopefully after they review the code, fix those problems
>>>> as well.  Then you can try resubmitting for inclusion.
>>>>
>>>> Best regards,
>>>>
>>>>                                              - Ted
>>>>
>>>>         
>>> My most up to date information is that Edward is still actively
>>> working on reiser4....
>>>
>>> ric
>>>
>>>
>>>       
>>
>>     
>
>   

Re: reiser4 for 2.6.27-rc1

[Ryan Hope]

So the purpose of that "plugins" document is just to "defend" the
present state of the reiser4 code?

On Sat, Aug 2, 2008 at 6:56 PM, Edward Shishkin
<edward.shishkin@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ryan Hope wrote:
>> Can you explain a little more what this "plugin design documentation"
>> actually is and how it supposed to help?
>> -Ryan
>>
>>
>
> This document is to define plugins, etc primitives (like conversion
> of run-time objects) used in reiser4, and to describe all reiser4
> interfaces, so that it will be clear that VFS functionality is not
> duplicated, there are not VFS layers inside reiser4, etc. (many items
> are devoted to interaction between VFS and reiser4).
> I am sorry, but these concepts (which are very central) have not been
> worked out carefully enough at the moment of this 3-year-old review:
> http://kerneltrap.org/node/5330
>
> Edward.
>
>> On Fri, Aug 1, 2008 at 6:40 PM, Edward Shishkin
>> <edward.shishkin@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Ric Wheeler wrote:
>>>
>>>> Theodore Tso wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Aug 01, 2008 at 12:34:53PM -0400, Ryan Hope wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>> Hi, I am here :)
>>> Join our mailing list:
>>>
>>> http://vger.kernel.org/vger-lists.html#reiserfs-devel
>>> http://marc.info/?l=reiserfs-devel&r=1&w=2
>>>
>>> There are many interesting tasks to resolve/investigate..
>>>
>>>
>>>>>> Hmmm, removing the plugin support might not be so hard....  I might
>>>>>> have to try this...
>>>>>>
>>> Please, don't try to do this.
>>>
>>> I am working on the plugin design document. It will be ready
>>> approximately in September. I believe that it'll address all the
>>> mentioned complaints.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>> I am not impressed with btrfs yet.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Well, if you're going to work on reiser4 (and I think there were other
>>>>> people who had also expressed interest/plans to work on it; you might
>>>>> try doing a search on the various mailing lists so you can coordinate
>>>>> with them and avoid duplicating work), my suggestion to you would be
>>>>> to find the comments that were made by the reviewers way back when,
>>>>> and make sure those comments have been addressed.
>>>>>
>>>>> Then, re-requests a code review, and promise that you won't abuse, and
>>>>> insult the integrity and impugn the motivations of the reviewers
>>>>>
>>> Well, Ted, I'll promise ;)
>>> We'll adhere strictly the propositional logic in the review thread..
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Edward.
>>>
>>>
>>>>> like
>>>>> Hans did, and hopefully after they review the code, fix those problems
>>>>> as well.  Then you can try resubmitting for inclusion.
>>>>>
>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>
>>>>>                                              - Ted
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> My most up to date information is that Edward is still actively
>>>> working on reiser4....
>>>>
>>>> ric
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

Re: reiser4 for 2.6.27-rc1

[Edward Shishkin]

Ryan Hope wrote:
> So the purpose of that "plugins" document is just to "defend" the
> present state of the reiser4 code?
>   

Yes. In particular.

Plugins stuff is a way of data storage optimization and its
removing definitely would be a mistake. What can arise here
again is complaints about "layering violation". However,
addressing them doesn't necessarily mean removing the whole
plugin stuff. I hope that this document will help such discussions
to be more constructive.

Thanks,
Edward.

> On Sat, Aug 2, 2008 at 6:56 PM, Edward Shishkin
> <edward.shishkin@gmail.com> wrote:
>   
>> Ryan Hope wrote:
>>     
>>> Can you explain a little more what this "plugin design documentation"
>>> actually is and how it supposed to help?
>>> -Ryan
>>>
>>>
>>>       
>> This document is to define plugins, etc primitives (like conversion
>> of run-time objects) used in reiser4, and to describe all reiser4
>> interfaces, so that it will be clear that VFS functionality is not
>> duplicated, there are not VFS layers inside reiser4, etc. (many items
>> are devoted to interaction between VFS and reiser4).
>> I am sorry, but these concepts (which are very central) have not been
>> worked out carefully enough at the moment of this 3-year-old review:
>> http://kerneltrap.org/node/5330
>>
>> Edward.
>>
>>     
>>> On Fri, Aug 1, 2008 at 6:40 PM, Edward Shishkin
>>> <edward.shishkin@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>       
>>>> Ric Wheeler wrote:
>>>>
>>>>         
>>>>> Theodore Tso wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>           
>>>>>> On Fri, Aug 01, 2008 at 12:34:53PM -0400, Ryan Hope wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>             
>>>> Hi, I am here :)
>>>> Join our mailing list:
>>>>
>>>> http://vger.kernel.org/vger-lists.html#reiserfs-devel
>>>> http://marc.info/?l=reiserfs-devel&r=1&w=2
>>>>
>>>> There are many interesting tasks to resolve/investigate..
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>         
>>>>>>> Hmmm, removing the plugin support might not be so hard....  I might
>>>>>>> have to try this...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>               
>>>> Please, don't try to do this.
>>>>
>>>> I am working on the plugin design document. It will be ready
>>>> approximately in September. I believe that it'll address all the
>>>> mentioned complaints.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>         
>>>>>>> I am not impressed with btrfs yet.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>               
>>>>>> Well, if you're going to work on reiser4 (and I think there were other
>>>>>> people who had also expressed interest/plans to work on it; you might
>>>>>> try doing a search on the various mailing lists so you can coordinate
>>>>>> with them and avoid duplicating work), my suggestion to you would be
>>>>>> to find the comments that were made by the reviewers way back when,
>>>>>> and make sure those comments have been addressed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then, re-requests a code review, and promise that you won't abuse, and
>>>>>> insult the integrity and impugn the motivations of the reviewers
>>>>>>
>>>>>>             
>>>> Well, Ted, I'll promise ;)
>>>> We'll adhere strictly the propositional logic in the review thread..
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Edward.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>         
>>>>>> like
>>>>>> Hans did, and hopefully after they review the code, fix those problems
>>>>>> as well.  Then you can try resubmitting for inclusion.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>                                              - Ted
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>             
>>>>> My most up to date information is that Edward is still actively
>>>>> working on reiser4....
>>>>>
>>>>> ric
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>           
>>>>         
>>>       
>>     
>
>   

Re: reiser4 for 2.6.27-rc1

[Dushan Tcholich]

Well as I remember akpm and hch both said that these "plugins" are
just a way of modular programing, and not layering violation, but I
just can't find those mails now, there were a lot of them.


On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 1:11 PM, Edward Shishkin
<edward.shishkin@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ryan Hope wrote:
>> So the purpose of that "plugins" document is just to "defend" the
>> present state of the reiser4 code?
>>
>
> Yes. In particular.
>
> Plugins stuff is a way of data storage optimization and its
> removing definitely would be a mistake. What can arise here
> again is complaints about "layering violation". However,
> addressing them doesn't necessarily mean removing the whole
> plugin stuff. I hope that this document will help such discussions
> to be more constructive.
>
> Thanks,
> Edward.
>
>> On Sat, Aug 2, 2008 at 6:56 PM, Edward Shishkin
>> <edward.shishkin@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Ryan Hope wrote:
>>>
>>>> Can you explain a little more what this "plugin design documentation"
>>>> actually is and how it supposed to help?
>>>> -Ryan
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> This document is to define plugins, etc primitives (like conversion
>>> of run-time objects) used in reiser4, and to describe all reiser4
>>> interfaces, so that it will be clear that VFS functionality is not
>>> duplicated, there are not VFS layers inside reiser4, etc. (many items
>>> are devoted to interaction between VFS and reiser4).
>>> I am sorry, but these concepts (which are very central) have not been
>>> worked out carefully enough at the moment of this 3-year-old review:
>>> http://kerneltrap.org/node/5330
>>>
>>> Edward.
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Fri, Aug 1, 2008 at 6:40 PM, Edward Shishkin
>>>> <edward.shishkin@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Ric Wheeler wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Theodore Tso wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, Aug 01, 2008 at 12:34:53PM -0400, Ryan Hope wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>> Hi, I am here :)
>>>>> Join our mailing list:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://vger.kernel.org/vger-lists.html#reiserfs-devel
>>>>> http://marc.info/?l=reiserfs-devel&r=1&w=2
>>>>>
>>>>> There are many interesting tasks to resolve/investigate..
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hmmm, removing the plugin support might not be so hard....  I might
>>>>>>>> have to try this...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>> Please, don't try to do this.
>>>>>
>>>>> I am working on the plugin design document. It will be ready
>>>>> approximately in September. I believe that it'll address all the
>>>>> mentioned complaints.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I am not impressed with btrfs yet.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Well, if you're going to work on reiser4 (and I think there were other
>>>>>>> people who had also expressed interest/plans to work on it; you might
>>>>>>> try doing a search on the various mailing lists so you can coordinate
>>>>>>> with them and avoid duplicating work), my suggestion to you would be
>>>>>>> to find the comments that were made by the reviewers way back when,
>>>>>>> and make sure those comments have been addressed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Then, re-requests a code review, and promise that you won't abuse, and
>>>>>>> insult the integrity and impugn the motivations of the reviewers
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>> Well, Ted, I'll promise ;)
>>>>> We'll adhere strictly the propositional logic in the review thread..
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Edward.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> like
>>>>>>> Hans did, and hopefully after they review the code, fix those problems
>>>>>>> as well.  Then you can try resubmitting for inclusion.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>                                              - Ted
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> My most up to date information is that Edward is still actively
>>>>>> working on reiser4....
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ric
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe reiserfs-devel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>

Re: reiser4 for 2.6.27-rc1

[Dushan Tcholich]

Found it :)
akpm:
"The plugins appear to be wildly misnamed - they're just an internal
abstraction layer which permits later feature additions to be added in a
clean and safe manner.  Certainly not worth all this fuss."
http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=115442117418736&w=2

hch:
"That because the real plugins are long gone.  It's just that neither the
complainers nor the fanboys in this thread ever read the code or generally
had any clue of their own."
http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=115443267908751&w=2

Hope this is of some help.
Bye
Dushan

On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 1:18 PM, Dushan Tcholich <dusanc@gmail.com> wrote:
> Well as I remember akpm and hch both said that these "plugins" are
> just a way of modular programing, and not layering violation, but I
> just can't find those mails now, there were a lot of them.
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 1:11 PM, Edward Shishkin
> <edward.shishkin@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Ryan Hope wrote:
>>> So the purpose of that "plugins" document is just to "defend" the
>>> present state of the reiser4 code?
>>>
>>
>> Yes. In particular.
>>
>> Plugins stuff is a way of data storage optimization and its
>> removing definitely would be a mistake. What can arise here
>> again is complaints about "layering violation". However,
>> addressing them doesn't necessarily mean removing the whole
>> plugin stuff. I hope that this document will help such discussions
>> to be more constructive.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Edward.
>>
>>> On Sat, Aug 2, 2008 at 6:56 PM, Edward Shishkin
>>> <edward.shishkin@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Ryan Hope wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Can you explain a little more what this "plugin design documentation"
>>>>> actually is and how it supposed to help?
>>>>> -Ryan
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> This document is to define plugins, etc primitives (like conversion
>>>> of run-time objects) used in reiser4, and to describe all reiser4
>>>> interfaces, so that it will be clear that VFS functionality is not
>>>> duplicated, there are not VFS layers inside reiser4, etc. (many items
>>>> are devoted to interaction between VFS and reiser4).
>>>> I am sorry, but these concepts (which are very central) have not been
>>>> worked out carefully enough at the moment of this 3-year-old review:
>>>> http://kerneltrap.org/node/5330
>>>>
>>>> Edward.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Aug 1, 2008 at 6:40 PM, Edward Shishkin
>>>>> <edward.shishkin@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Ric Wheeler wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Theodore Tso wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Fri, Aug 01, 2008 at 12:34:53PM -0400, Ryan Hope wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi, I am here :)
>>>>>> Join our mailing list:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://vger.kernel.org/vger-lists.html#reiserfs-devel
>>>>>> http://marc.info/?l=reiserfs-devel&r=1&w=2
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There are many interesting tasks to resolve/investigate..
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hmmm, removing the plugin support might not be so hard....  I might
>>>>>>>>> have to try this...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Please, don't try to do this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am working on the plugin design document. It will be ready
>>>>>> approximately in September. I believe that it'll address all the
>>>>>> mentioned complaints.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I am not impressed with btrfs yet.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Well, if you're going to work on reiser4 (and I think there were other
>>>>>>>> people who had also expressed interest/plans to work on it; you might
>>>>>>>> try doing a search on the various mailing lists so you can coordinate
>>>>>>>> with them and avoid duplicating work), my suggestion to you would be
>>>>>>>> to find the comments that were made by the reviewers way back when,
>>>>>>>> and make sure those comments have been addressed.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Then, re-requests a code review, and promise that you won't abuse, and
>>>>>>>> insult the integrity and impugn the motivations of the reviewers
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, Ted, I'll promise ;)
>>>>>> We'll adhere strictly the propositional logic in the review thread..
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> Edward.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> like
>>>>>>>> Hans did, and hopefully after they review the code, fix those problems
>>>>>>>> as well.  Then you can try resubmitting for inclusion.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>                                              - Ted
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> My most up to date information is that Edward is still actively
>>>>>>> working on reiser4....
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ric
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe reiserfs-devel" in
>> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
>> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>>
>

Re: reiser4 for 2.6.27-rc1

[Alexey Dobriyan]

On Fri, Aug 01, 2008 at 12:25:48PM -0400, Theodore Tso wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 01, 2008 at 09:49:55AM -0400, Ryan Hope wrote:
> > Why is reiser4 still not in a vanilla kernel for testing. I have had
> > to apply the reiser4 patches from -mm kernels to vanilla based
> > patchset for over a year now. Reiser4 works fine, what will it take to
> > get it included in vanilla? Here is a patch to add reiser4 to
> > 2.6.27-rc1:
> > 
> > http://zen-sources.org/files/reiser4-for-2.6.27-rc1.patch
> 
> The reasons laid out in these web pages haven't changed.
> 
> http://kernelnewbies.org/WhyReiser4IsNotIn
> http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/7/28/180
> http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/engine?do=post_view_flat;post=668645;page=1;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;mh=25;list=linux
> 
> Now that Hans is out of the picture, and Namesys seems to have
> collapsed, maybe someone can yank out the plugin architecture that
> Linus and others have objected to, which as near as I could tell was
> part of the Namesys's somewhat dodgy business plan of creating and
> selling (possibly proprietary; not sure what license they were going
> to be under) plugin modules for Reiser4 to make money.  The other
> issue that was raised during the review were some locking issues
> raised by Al Viro, if memory serves correctly.  I'm not sure if they
> were ever fixed;

	"That because the real plugins are long gone.  It's just that neither the
	complainers nor the fanboys in this thread ever read the code or generally
	had any clue of their own."
					--hch, 1 Aug 2006

reiser4 for 2.6.27-rc1

[Tim Tassonis]

> Why is reiser4 still not in a vanilla kernel for testing. I have had
> to apply the reiser4 patches from -mm kernels to vanilla based
> patchset for over a year now. Reiser4 works fine, what will it take to
> get it included in vanilla? Here is a patch to add reiser4 to
> 2.6.27-rc1:
> 
> http://zen-sources.org/files/reiser4-for-2.6.27-rc1.patch
> 
> -Ryan

A good thing for a start would be to rename the whole thing to something 
else, for obvious reasons.

Tim

Re: reiser4 for 2.6.27-rc1

[Pavel Machek]

On Mon 2008-08-04 14:26:21, Tim Tassonis wrote:
> >Why is reiser4 still not in a vanilla kernel for 
> >testing. I have had
> >to apply the reiser4 patches from -mm kernels to 
> >vanilla based
> >patchset for over a year now. Reiser4 works fine, what 
> >will it take to
> >get it included in vanilla? Here is a patch to add 
> >reiser4 to
> >2.6.27-rc1:
> >
> >http://zen-sources.org/files/reiser4-for-2.6.27-rc1.patch
> >
> >-Ryan
> 
> A good thing for a start would be to rename the whole 
> thing to something else, for obvious reasons.

Whats wrong with reiser4 name?
							Pavel
			(or am I feeding a troll?)
-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html

Re: reiser4 for 2.6.27-rc1

[Adrian Bunk]

On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 02:58:08PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> On Mon 2008-08-04 14:26:21, Tim Tassonis wrote:
> > >Why is reiser4 still not in a vanilla kernel for 
> > >testing. I have had
> > >to apply the reiser4 patches from -mm kernels to 
> > >vanilla based
> > >patchset for over a year now. Reiser4 works fine, what 
> > >will it take to
> > >get it included in vanilla? Here is a patch to add 
> > >reiser4 to
> > >2.6.27-rc1:
> > >
> > >http://zen-sources.org/files/reiser4-for-2.6.27-rc1.patch
> > >
> > >-Ryan
> > 
> > A good thing for a start would be to rename the whole 
> > thing to something else, for obvious reasons.
> 
> Whats wrong with reiser4 name?
> 
> 							Pavel
> 			(or am I feeding a troll?)

Not wanting a new filesystem named after a convicted murderer is not 
a trollish suggestion.

cu
Adrian

-- 

       "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
        of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
       "Only a promise," Lao Er said.
                                       Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed

Re: reiser4 for 2.6.27-rc1

[Michael Krufky]

On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 9:18 AM, Adrian Bunk <bunk@kernel.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 02:58:08PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
>> On Mon 2008-08-04 14:26:21, Tim Tassonis wrote:
>> > >Why is reiser4 still not in a vanilla kernel for
>> > >testing. I have had
>> > >to apply the reiser4 patches from -mm kernels to
>> > >vanilla based
>> > >patchset for over a year now. Reiser4 works fine, what
>> > >will it take to
>> > >get it included in vanilla? Here is a patch to add
>> > >reiser4 to
>> > >2.6.27-rc1:
>> > >
>> > >http://zen-sources.org/files/reiser4-for-2.6.27-rc1.patch
>> > >
>> > >-Ryan
>> >
>> > A good thing for a start would be to rename the whole
>> > thing to something else, for obvious reasons.
>>
>> Whats wrong with reiser4 name?
>>
>>                                                       Pavel
>>                       (or am I feeding a troll?)
>
> Not wanting a new filesystem named after a convicted murderer is not
> a trollish suggestion.


Regardless of the murder conviction, I still believe that the guy
should get credit for his work.

Reiserfs is a name that we all know of, regardless of how current we
are with the news (although you'd have to be PRETTY far behind if you
don't know about the crime)

The current reiserfs filesystems aren't being renamed -- are they??

Does it really hurt to keep his name there?  I think it should just go as-is.

-Mike

Re: reiser4 for 2.6.27-rc1

[Adrian Bunk]

On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 09:24:58AM -0400, Michael Krufky wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 9:18 AM, Adrian Bunk <bunk@kernel.org> wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 02:58:08PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> >> On Mon 2008-08-04 14:26:21, Tim Tassonis wrote:
> >> > >Why is reiser4 still not in a vanilla kernel for
> >> > >testing. I have had
> >> > >to apply the reiser4 patches from -mm kernels to
> >> > >vanilla based
> >> > >patchset for over a year now. Reiser4 works fine, what
> >> > >will it take to
> >> > >get it included in vanilla? Here is a patch to add
> >> > >reiser4 to
> >> > >2.6.27-rc1:
> >> > >
> >> > >http://zen-sources.org/files/reiser4-for-2.6.27-rc1.patch
> >> > >
> >> > >-Ryan
> >> >
> >> > A good thing for a start would be to rename the whole
> >> > thing to something else, for obvious reasons.
> >>
> >> Whats wrong with reiser4 name?
> >>
> >>                                                       Pavel
> >>                       (or am I feeding a troll?)
> >
> > Not wanting a new filesystem named after a convicted murderer is not
> > a trollish suggestion.
> 
> Regardless of the murder conviction, I still believe that the guy
> should get credit for his work.

Other filesystems are usually not named after people, e.g. ext2 is not 
named cardfs2 and jffs2 is not named woodhousefs.

> Reiserfs is a name that we all know of, regardless of how current we
> are with the news (although you'd have to be PRETTY far behind if you
> don't know about the crime)
> 
> The current reiserfs filesystems aren't being renamed -- are they??
> 
> Does it really hurt to keep his name there?  I think it should just go as-is.

You can agree or disagree with Tim, but it's not a trollish suggestion.

> -Mike

cu
Adrian

-- 

       "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
        of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
       "Only a promise," Lao Er said.
                                       Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed

Re: reiser4 for 2.6.27-rc1

[Alan Cox]

> > Regardless of the murder conviction, I still believe that the guy
> > should get credit for his work.
> 
> Other filesystems are usually not named after people, e.g. ext2 is not 
> named cardfs2 and jffs2 is not named woodhousefs.

Up to the author really isn't it. And dwmw2fs would be hard to pronounce.

> > Does it really hurt to keep his name there?  I think it should just go as-is.
> 
> You can agree or disagree with Tim, but it's not a trollish suggestion.

Not however a sensible one - Hans Reiser is the architect of reiser4
regardless of what else he may be. Changing a label doesn't change that
fact.

Alan

Re: reiser4 for 2.6.27-rc1

[Michael Krufky]

Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 09:24:58AM -0400, Michael Krufky wrote:
>   
>> On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 9:18 AM, Adrian Bunk <bunk@kernel.org> wrote:
>>     
>>> On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 02:58:08PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
>>>       
>>>> On Mon 2008-08-04 14:26:21, Tim Tassonis wrote:
>>>>         
>>>>>> Why is reiser4 still not in a vanilla kernel for
>>>>>> testing. I have had
>>>>>> to apply the reiser4 patches from -mm kernels to
>>>>>> vanilla based
>>>>>> patchset for over a year now. Reiser4 works fine, what
>>>>>> will it take to
>>>>>> get it included in vanilla? Here is a patch to add
>>>>>> reiser4 to
>>>>>> 2.6.27-rc1:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://zen-sources.org/files/reiser4-for-2.6.27-rc1.patch
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -Ryan
>>>>>>             
>>>>> A good thing for a start would be to rename the whole
>>>>> thing to something else, for obvious reasons.
>>>>>           
>>>> Whats wrong with reiser4 name?
>>>>
>>>>                                                       Pavel
>>>>                       (or am I feeding a troll?)
>>>>         
>>> Not wanting a new filesystem named after a convicted murderer is not
>>> a trollish suggestion.
>>>       
>> Regardless of the murder conviction, I still believe that the guy
>> should get credit for his work.
>>     
>
> Other filesystems are usually not named after people, e.g. ext2 is not 
> named cardfs2 and jffs2 is not named woodhousefs.
>
>   
>> Reiserfs is a name that we all know of, regardless of how current we
>> are with the news (although you'd have to be PRETTY far behind if you
>> don't know about the crime)
>>
>> The current reiserfs filesystems aren't being renamed -- are they??
>>
>> Does it really hurt to keep his name there?  I think it should just go as-is.
>>     
>
> You can agree or disagree with Tim, but it's not a trollish suggestion.

I agree -- it is not a trollish suggestion.  I just wanted to express my
opinion.

I dont feel strongly either way, but since it was his work I felt that
his naming should stand.

Meanwhile, it's obvious that nobody will agree with that point.

If we're going to change the name, why not add some sick humor and call
it MurderFS?  That will really leave a mark on people.  :-P


-Mike

Re: reiser4 for 2.6.27-rc1

[Frans Meulenbroeks]

>  If we're going to change the name, why not add some sick humor and call
>  it MurderFS?  That will really leave a mark on people.  :-P

I'd rather have a killerfs :-)

Re: reiser4 for 2.6.27-rc1

[Jeremy Fitzhardinge]

Adrian Bunk wrote:
> Other filesystems are usually not named after people, e.g. ext2 is not 
> named cardfs2 and jffs2 is not named woodhousefs.
>   

Bring back xiafs!

    J

Re: reiser4 for 2.6.27-rc1

[Bill Davidsen]

Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> Adrian Bunk wrote:
>> Other filesystems are usually not named after people, e.g. ext2 is not 
>> named cardfs2 and jffs2 is not named woodhousefs.
>>   
> 
> Bring back xiafs!
> 
I believe that Linus said he would include it if someone brought it up 
to date. Back when it was dropped because no one maintained it.

-- 
Bill Davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com>
   "We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from
the machinations of the wicked."  - from Slashdot

Re: reiser4 for 2.6.27-rc1

[Tim Tassonis]

Michael Krufky wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 9:18 AM, Adrian Bunk <bunk@kernel.org> wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 02:58:08PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
>>> On Mon 2008-08-04 14:26:21, Tim Tassonis wrote:
>>>>> Why is reiser4 still not in a vanilla kernel for
>>>>> testing. I have had
>>>>> to apply the reiser4 patches from -mm kernels to
>>>>> vanilla based
>>>>> patchset for over a year now. Reiser4 works fine, what
>>>>> will it take to
>>>>> get it included in vanilla? Here is a patch to add
>>>>> reiser4 to
>>>>> 2.6.27-rc1:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://zen-sources.org/files/reiser4-for-2.6.27-rc1.patch
>>>>>
>>>>> -Ryan
>>>> A good thing for a start would be to rename the whole
>>>> thing to something else, for obvious reasons.
>>> Whats wrong with reiser4 name?
>>>
>>>                                                       Pavel
>>>                       (or am I feeding a troll?)
>> Not wanting a new filesystem named after a convicted murderer is not
>> a trollish suggestion.
> 
> 
> Regardless of the murder conviction, I still believe that the guy
> should get credit for his work.
> 
> Reiserfs is a name that we all know of, regardless of how current we
> are with the news (although you'd have to be PRETTY far behind if you
> don't know about the crime)
> 
> The current reiserfs filesystems aren't being renamed -- are they??
> 
> Does it really hurt to keep his name there?  I think it should just go as-is.

Well, in my opinion, there is little point in renaming reiserfs 3 now, 
as it is basically obsolete anyway and I suppose will disappear over time.

As reiser4 is not yet in and would need some rework before inclusion 
anyway, the name could be fixed easily and I do think it would be a bit 
irritating to just completely ignore real-world issues.

As for giving credit, I wasn't advocating in removing authorship 
attribution (that's what giving credit means to me), but calling the 
filesystem after himself was always a bit egocentric anyway. We don't 
have t'sofs, engelfs, molnarsched and stuff like that.

And yes, I think Hans lost his right to decide over the name because of 
what he has done. That is no disrespect for his work, only for him as 
person in general, and I do strongly disrespect him as a person.

Tim

> 
> -Mike

Re: reiser4 for 2.6.27-rc1

[Alan Cox]

> And yes, I think Hans lost his right to decide over the name because of 
> what he has done. That is no disrespect for his work, only for him as 
> person in general, and I do strongly disrespect him as a person.

So should ever reissue of a work by Gary Glitter have the name removed
from the cover, every opera by Wagner have the name removed for his
attitudes ?

History is a one way street, and you might as well have the fs known the
way it is so that people remember "reiser oh wasn't he the guy who.." -
unless you are trying to market the fs I guess.

Alan

Re: reiser4 for 2.6.27-rc1

[Tim Tassonis]

Alan Cox wrote:
>> And yes, I think Hans lost his right to decide over the name because of 
>> what he has done. That is no disrespect for his work, only for him as 
>> person in general, and I do strongly disrespect him as a person.
> 
> So should ever reissue of a work by Gary Glitter have the name removed
> from the cover, every opera by Wagner have the name removed for his
> attitudes ?
> 
> History is a one way street, and you might as well have the fs known the
> way it is so that people remember "reiser oh wasn't he the guy who.." -
> unless you are trying to market the fs I guess.
> 
> Alan

Well I think I said, I wouldn't be in favour of renaming reiser3, also 
for above reasons (although I didn't mention them).

I am in favour of renaming reiser4 exactly because it is not yet in and 
naming a filesystem after its author is not as automatic as putting the 
name of the singer on a record sleeve.

And I do give a dog's turd about what Hans might think about this.

It won't be my decision, anyway....

Tim

Re: reiser4 for 2.6.27-rc1

[Ryan Hope]

On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 10:00 AM, Tim Tassonis <timtas@cubic.ch> wrote:
> I am in favour of renaming reiser4 exactly because it is not yet in and
> naming a filesystem after its author is not as automatic as putting the name
> of the singer on a record sleeve.

There is no point in renaming the filesystem, its already known as
reiser4, it should stay that way.

-Ryan

Re: reiser4 for 2.6.27-rc1

[Tim Tassonis]

Ryan Hope wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 10:00 AM, Tim Tassonis <timtas@cubic.ch> wrote:
>> I am in favour of renaming reiser4 exactly because it is not yet in and
>> naming a filesystem after its author is not as automatic as putting the name
>> of the singer on a record sleeve.
> 
> There is no point in renaming the filesystem, its already known as
> reiser4, it should stay that way.

One last (batch of) comment(s):

I am not advocating renaming the existing -mm implementation to 
something else so it can rot there under a different name.

I can very well live with reiser4 not making it into mainline, I never 
used reiser3 (only once for two, and after a power outage rendered the 
fs unusable and fsck did fsck all, I chose reliability over 
"performance") and am quite happy with ext3 for years and btrfs looks 
promising, too.

I was merely thinking: If reiser4 really is all that great and some 
people want it desperately in mainline, apart from fixing outstanding 
issues or convincing Al etc there are none left, they might rename it to 
reduce the controversy potential over its inclusion. I would think that 
for people desperately wanting it in, the features of reiser4 are more 
important than the name and the name is probably somewhat "difficult".

Renaming something for political reasons is certainly something you 
shouldn't do aggressively, but I would favour it in this case:
- For mainline, it's no rename, as it is not in yet.
- I don't like having the author's name as the fs's name anyway.
- It might save some unnecessary bad press .

On the other hand, I guess the real victims probably don't care and so 
it wouldn't bother me that much either.

Tim

Re: reiser4 for 2.6.27-rc1

[Jeff Chua]

On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 11:24 PM, Tim Tassonis <timtas@cubic.ch> wrote:

> I can very well live with reiser4 not making it into mainline, I never used
> reiser3 (only once for two, and after a power outage rendered the fs
> unusable and fsck did fsck all, I chose reliability over "performance") and
> am quite happy with ext3 for years and btrfs looks promising, too.

I'm one who think reiser3 is great, and can't wait to see reiser4 in
the mainstream, so please don't just assume reiserfs is obsolete. It's
very much usable and very stable. So, if you don't use it, please
don't comment negatively on. And I am who is very appreciative of
Hans's contribution to Linux giving it a great journaling filesystem
to start with. Reiser4 may have tangent off track and annoyed many
smart developers, but please give it a chance to make Linux even
better.

Thanks,
Jeff.

Re: reiser4 for 2.6.27-rc1

[Ryan Hope]

the name of a filesystem should have no bearing on whether or not
people want to include it in mainline, people should not use its name
as an argument against including it

On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 11:24 AM, Tim Tassonis <timtas@cubic.ch> wrote:
> Ryan Hope wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 10:00 AM, Tim Tassonis <timtas@cubic.ch> wrote:
>>>
>>> I am in favour of renaming reiser4 exactly because it is not yet in and
>>> naming a filesystem after its author is not as automatic as putting the
>>> name
>>> of the singer on a record sleeve.
>>
>> There is no point in renaming the filesystem, its already known as
>> reiser4, it should stay that way.
>
> One last (batch of) comment(s):
>
> I am not advocating renaming the existing -mm implementation to something
> else so it can rot there under a different name.
>
> I can very well live with reiser4 not making it into mainline, I never used
> reiser3 (only once for two, and after a power outage rendered the fs
> unusable and fsck did fsck all, I chose reliability over "performance") and
> am quite happy with ext3 for years and btrfs looks promising, too.
>
> I was merely thinking: If reiser4 really is all that great and some people
> want it desperately in mainline, apart from fixing outstanding issues or
> convincing Al etc there are none left, they might rename it to reduce the
> controversy potential over its inclusion. I would think that for people
> desperately wanting it in, the features of reiser4 are more important than
> the name and the name is probably somewhat "difficult".
>
> Renaming something for political reasons is certainly something you
> shouldn't do aggressively, but I would favour it in this case:
> - For mainline, it's no rename, as it is not in yet.
> - I don't like having the author's name as the fs's name anyway.
> - It might save some unnecessary bad press .
>
> On the other hand, I guess the real victims probably don't care and so it
> wouldn't bother me that much either.
>
> Tim
>
>

Re: reiser4 for 2.6.27-rc1

[Bill Davidsen]

Alan Cox wrote:
>> And yes, I think Hans lost his right to decide over the name because of 
>> what he has done. That is no disrespect for his work, only for him as 
>> person in general, and I do strongly disrespect him as a person.
> 
> So should ever reissue of a work by Gary Glitter have the name removed
> from the cover, every opera by Wagner have the name removed for his
> attitudes ?
> 
> History is a one way street, and you might as well have the fs known the
> way it is so that people remember "reiser oh wasn't he the guy who.." -
> unless you are trying to market the fs I guess.
> 
A one way street indeed, I see no reason to rename the f/s since the 
association will remain. People who follow Linux will know anyway, and I 
doubt most people will remember one more guy who killed his wife during 
a nasty divorce. Sad to say there's a lot of that around.

-- 
Bill Davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com>
   "We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from
the machinations of the wicked."  - from Slashdot

Re: reiser4 for 2.6.27-rc1

[Andi Kleen]

Adrian Bunk <bunk@kernel.org> writes:

> is not a trollish suggestion.

If trollish is defined as "likely to create an endless thread
that will do absolutely nothing to bring Linux forward" then it
was definitely trollish.

-Andi

Re: reiser4 for 2.6.27-rc1

[Tim Tassonis]

Andi Kleen wrote:
> Adrian Bunk <bunk@kernel.org> writes:
> 
>> is not a trollish suggestion.
> 
> If trollish is defined as "likely to create an endless thread
> that will do absolutely nothing to bring Linux forward" then it
> was definitely trollish.

Ok, I will refrain from further commenting on this and apologize for 
starting this discussion.

Tim

> 
> -Andi