Clemens Eisserer schrieb:
The longer I read discussions about the inclusion of reiser4 into the
kernel the more I think the whole discussion has to do with personal
oppinions, not with technical problems or limitations that should be
adressed.
Anybody who is a ext3 fan seems to find his own
Tomasz Chmielewski wrote:
and the only other Linux fs with write mode that has compression is
patched ext2 (which is also not included in the kernel, and has some
problems) - well, there is also jffs2 with limits of 4 GB partition, so
not really useful for storing bigger amounts of data.
Well,
Artem B. Bityutskiy schrieb:
Tomasz Chmielewski wrote:
and the only other Linux fs with write mode that has compression is
patched ext2 (which is also not included in the kernel, and has some
problems) - well, there is also jffs2 with limits of 4 GB partition,
so not really useful for
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:
reiser42557872 bytes
xfs
On Sat, Sep 17, 2005 at 01:56:14PM +0300, Denis Vlasenko wrote:
At least reiser4 is smaller. IIRC xfs is older than reiser4 and had more time
to optimize code size, but:
reiser42557872 bytes
xfs3306782 bytes
and romfs is smaller than ext2, damn. Should we remove all
On Sun, Sep 18, 2005 at 01:21:23PM +0300, Denis Vlasenko wrote:
This is it. I do not say accept reiser4 NOW, I am saying give Hans
good code review.
After he did his basic homework. Note that reviewing hans code is probably
at the very end of everyones todo list because every critizm of his
I threw in your new codedrop into a compilation and the byte-order
mess is _still_ now sorted out. Please kill the d* as struct type
crap and just use __le types directly.
Also lots of memset with byte count of 0 warnings from sparse.
On Sunday 18 September 2005 12:26, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Sun, Sep 18, 2005 at 01:21:23PM +0300, Denis Vlasenko wrote:
This is it. I do not say accept reiser4 NOW, I am saying give Hans
good code review.
After he did his basic homework. Note that reviewing hans code is probably
at
On Sunday 18 September 2005 15:06, Christian Iversen wrote:
On Sunday 18 September 2005 12:26, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Sun, Sep 18, 2005 at 01:21:23PM +0300, Denis Vlasenko wrote:
This is it. I do not say accept reiser4 NOW, I am saying give Hans
good code review.
After he did his
Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Sat, Sep 17, 2005 at 01:56:14PM +0300, Denis Vlasenko wrote:
At least reiser4 is smaller. IIRC xfs is older than reiser4 and had more time
to optimize code size, but:
reiser42557872 bytes
xfs3306782 bytes
and romfs is smaller than ext2, damn.
Denis Vlasenko wrote:
If you want reiser4 included into mainline, do something. Like download
a patch and try to use it.
Alright...
Last time I tried, it didn't work. Kernel locked up. Namesys was quick
with fix for the lockup, but then ls . failed to work. I sent all
the data (kernel
On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 13:22:27 EDT, michael chang said:
Give Hans a chance; and please try to understand, even if he's hard to
work with. Discriminate him because he's not a developer you can talk
with, and I believe that's like discriminating a guy in a wheelchair
because he can't run with
michael chang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 9/18/05, Christoph Hellwig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Sep 18, 2005 at 01:21:23PM +0300, Denis Vlasenko wrote:
This is it. I do not say accept reiser4 NOW, I am saying give Hans
good code review.
After he did his basic homework. Note that
Horst von Brand wrote:
There are lots of reports of ReiserFS 3
filesystems completely destroyed by minor hardware flakiness.
Honestly, this is one of the things I like about Linux. If I have
memory errors, Windows will just keep running, occasionally something
will crash, you restart it,
For what it's worth sometimes people get emotional and frustrated and
sometimes people can be difficult at thimes to work with. But - for what
it's worth - I think people should ignore some of that as human nature
and look at the big picture.
And the big picture is
Hans has make a huge
On Sul, 2005-09-18 at 13:22 -0400, michael chang wrote:
This is exciting to... whom? The only thing that appears remotely
interesting about it is that it's made by Oracle and apparently is
supposed to be geared toward parallel server whatsits.
Which no current included fs supports. And
David Masover wrote:
Horst von Brand wrote:
There are lots of reports of ReiserFS 3
filesystems completely destroyed by minor hardware flakiness.
Honestly, this is one of the things I like about Linux. If I have
memory errors, Windows will just keep running, occasionally something
will
Denis Vlasenko wrote:
On Friday 16 September 2005 20:05, Hans Reiser wrote:
All objections have now been addressed so far as I can discern.
Random observation:
You can declare functions even if you never use them.
Thus here you can avoid using #if/#endif:
#if defined(REISER4_DEBUG)
I'm of the same opinion. If I have hardware that has a problem, and
causes downtime, it gets replaced or repaired. I don't switch to a
different piece of software to compensate for broken hardware.
With that said, I have seen ReiserFS expose hardware that had problems.
Hardware was
I have a bug report for the first time about reiser4 in 2.6.14-rc1-mm1
with 4k stacks,
preempt and smp. It is the first time I face a bug after using reiser4
for about a year. Well I had to with 4k stacks right ?
firefox has triggerred the bug twice and I had to fsck the filesystem
with --fix
PFC wrote:
I'm of the same opinion. If I have hardware that has a problem, and
causes downtime, it gets replaced or repaired. I don't switch to a
different piece of software to compensate for broken hardware.
With that said, I have seen ReiserFS expose hardware that had
problems.
PFC wrote:
I'm of the same opinion. If I have hardware that has a problem, and
causes downtime, it gets replaced or repaired. I don't switch to a
different piece of software to compensate for broken hardware.
With that said, I have seen ReiserFS expose hardware that had
problems.
Denis Vlasenko wrote:
And yet thousands and thousands of people, businesses, etc, say that
the Linux kernel code is miles above all the commercial software out
there.
Not the commercial software I have worked with. IBM code, government
procured code, both are much more readable code than
Alan Cox wrote:
It doesn't matter if reiser4 causes crashes. It matters that people can
fix them, that they are actively fixed and the code is maintainable. It
will have bugs, all complex code has bugs. Hans team have demonstrated
the ability to fix some of those bugs fast, but we also all
Lennart Sorensen wrote:
Neither was ready for use when they were
included in the kernel and should probably have had big warning signs in
the kernel config for them.
They did have warning signs: they were labeled experimental as is
reiser4.
At some point developers and their limited
Christian Iversen wrote:
On Sunday 18 September 2005 12:26, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Sun, Sep 18, 2005 at 01:21:23PM +0300, Denis Vlasenko wrote:
This is it. I do not say accept reiser4 NOW, I am saying give Hans
good code review.
After he did his basic homework. Note that
On Sunday 18 September 2005 21:25, David Masover wrote:
Denis Vlasenko wrote:
If you want reiser4 included into mainline, do something. Like download
a patch and try to use it.
Alright...
Last time I tried, it didn't work. Kernel locked up. Namesys was quick
with fix for the
Horst von Brand wrote:
that and there's much more exciting filesystems like ocfs2 around that
This is exciting to... whom?
To Cristoph, obviously. You should thank him for doing the (hard, boring,
thankless) work of reviewing code for free. Even if it isn't yours. As he
is
On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 22:16:11 PDT, Hans Reiser said:
Hellwig, people who write slow file systems should not lecture their
measurably superiors on how to code. Oh, and I should mention that
other people besides me have measured reiser4, and concluded it is twice
the speed of the other Linux
On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 12:39:48PM -0700, Hans Reiser wrote:
Christoph Hellwig wrote:
additinoal comment is that the code is very messy, very different
from normal kernel style, full of indirections and thus hard to read.
Most of my customers remark that Namesys code is head and
On Friday 16 September 2005 22:52, Kyle Moffett wrote:
[CC list trimmed to relevant people, no need to spam Linus' and
Andrew's mailboxes, they have enough to do as it is]
On Sep 16, 2005, at 15:39:48, Hans Reiser wrote:
Christoph Hellwig wrote:
additinoal comment is that the code is
On Saturday 17 September 2005 12:22, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 12:39:48PM -0700, Hans Reiser wrote:
Christoph Hellwig wrote:
additinoal comment is that the code is very messy, very different
from normal kernel style, full of indirections and thus hard to read.
At least reiser4 is smaller. IIRC xfs is older than reiser4 and had more time
to optimize code size, but:
reiser42557872 bytes
xfs3306782 bytes
And modules sizes:
reiser4.ko442012 bytes
xfs.ko494337 bytes
--
vda
On Friday 16 September 2005 20:05, Hans Reiser wrote:
All objections have now been addressed so far as I can discern.
Random observation:
You can declare functions even if you never use them.
Thus here you can avoid using #if/#endif:
#if defined(REISER4_DEBUG) || defined(REISER4_DEBUG_MODIFY)
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:
reiser42557872 bytes
xfs3306782 bytes
And modules sizes:
reiser4.ko442012
All objections have now been addressed so far as I can discern.
The VFS layering issue was addressed after 2 months of recoding.
The undesired type safe lists were removed after ~ a man week of coding.
Cosmetic issues regarding line length, etc., were addressed.
Numerous ~ one
On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 10:05:08AM -0700, Hans Reiser wrote:
All objections have now been addressed so far as I can discern.
The VFS layering issue was addressed after 2 months of recoding.
The undesired type safe lists were removed after ~ a man week of coding.
Cosmetic
more trivial review comments ontop of the previous one, after looking
at things:
- please never use list_for_each in new code but list_for_each_entry
- never use kernel_thread in new code but kthread_*
- do_sendfile duplicates the common sendfile code. why aren't you
using the generic
Christoph Hellwig wrote:
additinoal comment is that the code is very messy, very different
from normal kernel style, full of indirections and thus hard to read.
Most of my customers remark that Namesys code is head and shoulders
above the rest of the kernel code. So yes, it is different. In
On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 12:39:48PM -0700, Hans Reiser wrote:
Most of my customers remark that Namesys code is head and shoulders
above the rest of the kernel code. So yes, it is different. In
particular, they cite the XFS code as being so incredibly hard to read
that its unreadability is
On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 04:50:45PM -0400, Lennart Sorensen wrote:
Well my experience with XFS for about 6 months using 2.6 kernels has
been about as good as my experience with reiserfs 3.6 back when 2.4
was fairly new.
That's why I run ext3.
I don't need my filesystem locking up, leaking
101 - 141 of 141 matches
Mail list logo
