On Sonntag, 17. Februar 2008, Alan McKinnon wrote: > On Sunday 17 February 2008, James wrote: > > Volker Armin Hemmann <volker.armin.hemmann <at> tu-clausthal.de> > > writes: > > > > > that is bullshit. If you have ever followed the ml you would > > > > > now it. > > > > > > > > It's been languishing in -mm for ages, never mind any progress > > > > that namesys itself might make with their own code. > > > > Well, I'm no Reiser expert, but a few days ago I was reading at > > kernel newbies and following some links about the future of the linux > > kernel, when I stumbled across something that really makes sense > > concerning why many influential kernel devs do not like (trust) > > reiser4fs: > > > > That is the style allows for 'loadable' modules (er the nomenclature > > is plugin) and the resulting fear that if reiser4 is 'blessed' and > > included into the linux kernel, then those with advanced knowledge > > could write very specific modules (of the commercial kind) for niche > > feature that just plug into reiser4fs. > > A further HUGE objection is the extreme difficulty in writing an fsck > for such a filesystem.
two weeks ago I had a screw-up in my reiser4-based /var. fsck.reiser4 fixed it nicely. Since the fsck is already there -what is your argument again? > Don't get me wrong, Hans' ideas for reiser4 are extremely > forward-thinking and possibly very useful and valuable. Imagine the > possibilities - the user could tune the filesystem to do whatever he > needed, plug in modules optimized for the data the user is using, even > in ways that namesys never predicted. WinFS could actually happen, just > not on Windows <evil grin> > > However, not at the expense of existing deployments and methods. An fsck > is an absolute requirement for Linux's largest user-base on something > with the scope of reiser4. so we should all be happy that the fsck is there and works. -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
