Re: I request inclusion of reiser4 in the mainline kernel

Denis Vlasenko
2005-09-18T10:21:57Z

On Sunday 18 September 2005 03:34, Chris White wrote:
> CC-List trimmed
>
> On Saturday 17 September 2005 20:15, Denis Vlasenko wrote:
> > > At least reiser4 is smaller. IIRC xfs is older than reiser4 and had more
> > > time to optimize code size, but:
> > >
> > > reiser4 2557872 bytes
> > > xfs 3306782 bytes
> >
> > And modules sizes:
> >
> > reiser4.ko 442012 bytes
> > xfs.ko 494337 bytes
>
> All this is fine and dandy, but saying "My code is better than yours!!" still
> doesn't solve the issue this thread hopes to achieve, that being "I'd like to
> get reiser4 into the kernel". There seems to be a lot of (historical?)
> tension present here, but all that seems to be doing is making things worse.
> PLEASE keep this thing a tad on par. Keeping this up is hurting everyone
> more than helping. I wish I could say something as simple as "let's just be
> friends", but that's saying a lot. I can say this though: this is open
> source, and that means that our source is open, and we should be too.

I am trying to say that I think that Hans is being treated a bit unfairly.
His fs is new and has fairly complex on-disk structure and complex journalling
machinery, yet his source and object code is smaller than xfs which already
is accepted. This is no easy feat I guess.

Maybe xfs shouldn't be accepted too, this may be an answer.

Let's look at the code. Hans' code is not _that_ awful. Yet people
(not all of them, but some) do not point to specific things which they
want to be fixed/improved. I see blanket arguments like "your code is hard
to read". Well. Maybe spend a minute on what exactly is hard to read,
or do we require Hans to be able to read minds from the distance?

This is it. I do not say "accept reiser4 NOW", I am saying "give Hans
good code review".
--
vda