On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 08:47:19PM -0700, Vito Caputo wrote: > On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 04:38:52AM +0100, Al Viro wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 03:19:12AM -0700, Metztli Information Technology > > wrote: > > > I installed reiser4 -enhanced Linux kernel 4.17.19-1 --thus replacing the > > > prior hung reiser4 -patched kernel 4.18.15-1 in the Google Compute Engine > > > (GCE) cloud instance. After less than 24 hours the 4.17.19-1 hung in > > > similar way to the 4.18.15-1. > > > > > > Please note that I had been running my custom Metztli Reiser4 Debian > > > Stretch image with reiser4 linux 4.14.20-1 without issues for several > > > months > > > < https://github.com/Metztli/reiser4-debian-kernel-packaging-4.14.20 > > > > --until I decided to upgrade to newer kernel(s). > > > > Er... Does anybody maintain reiser4 these days? I can't recall a single > > mail > > along the lines of "such-and-such VFS/VM/scheduler/etc. change would break > > reiser4" > > in quite a few years (more than a decade, most likely)... > > I've wondered if we should rename reiserfs to something else. As-is, > it's not likely to attract any developers since it may as well be named > hitlerfs or something similarly uncomfortable to explain to a > significant other as what you've been working on.
Sigh... Godwin Law in action, at the third posting in thread ;-/ > That is, assuming it's going to continue to exist in-tree... reiser4 has never been in-tree to start with. And name is completely irrelevant - all I'm refering to is that I have not seen any postings on l-k/fsdevel/etc. from anybody working on that particular out-of-tree codebase. Put it that way - I would expect the bitrot from (apparent) decade-long inactivity to be a much more serious problem than anything naming-related.
