3.6 will always be supported for bug fixes, but will not receive new features if I can help it. It is stable supported code, and should be kept that way.
Regarding the journaling implementation, let's see what Chris says before I comment. Hans michael chang wrote: >On 8/31/05, Hifumi Hisashi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >>michael chang wrote: >> >> >> >>>Surely we don't want this. Look at the papers on Namesys's websites, >>>about the atomicaty and the banking example. But that's just my >>>personal opinion. Besides, I believe it's more likely that usually >>>the power gets lost than the SCSI or IDE cable gets disconnected, >>>AFAIK... >>> >>> >>> >>> >> A write() syscall with the O_SYNC flag must ensure that not only >>file data block >>but also journal (meta-data update) are written to a disk when this >>syscall end. >> But, current implementation of Reiserfs does not do that. If a system >>crashes, >>a filesystem recovers from the journal transaction log. But, Reiserfs >>may not >>recover in some cases. >> I checked other filesystems like ext3, jfs, xfs. Those filesystem >>write transactions >>to a disk everytime write() with the O_SYNC is performed. In those >>filesystem, >>I have no trouble mentioned above. >> >> I should say, the Reiserfs would be "un"reliable filesystem.......... >> >> > >That said, AFAIK, Reiser(fs) 3.6 patches are somewhat redundant >(although if they solve a "problem", sure, go ahead) since this >funcationality should be present in Reiser4 in one form or another -- >I don't know if Reiser3.6 is still "supported" per se, anyways. But >don't bash on me -- I'm not subscribed to the reiserfs-dev nor >linux-fsdevel lists, so don't bash me for saying something I shouldn't >say otherwise (I don't see how removing these lists from the replies >would help, but if that is requested, let me know). > > >
