On Tue 19-09-23 18:02:39, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Hi Peter,
>
> On Tue, Sep 19, 2023 at 5:58 PM Peter Lafreniere <pe...@n8pjl.ca> wrote:
> > 2) Stops building an obsolete and largely-unused filesystem unnecessarily.
> > Some hobbyist targets like m68k and alpha may prefer to keep all
> > filesystems
> > available until total removal, but others like arm and UML have no need
> > for
> > ReiserFS to be built unless specifically configured.
>
> As UML is used a lot for testing, isn't it actually counter-productive
> to remove ReiserFS from the UML defconfig? The less testing it
> receives, the higher the chance of introducing regressions.
The only testing I know about for reiserfs (besides build testing) is
syzbot. And regarding the people / bots doing filesystem testing I know
none of them uses UML. Rather it is x86 VMs these days where reiserfs is
disabled in the defconfig for a *long* time (many years). Also when you do
filesystem testing, you usually just test the few filesystems you care
about and for which you have all the tools installed. So frankly I don't
see a good reason to leave reiserfs enabled in defconfigs. But sure if
m68k or other arch wants to keep reiserfs in it's defconfig for some
consistency reasons, I'm fine with it. I just suspect that for most archs
this is just a historical reason.
Honza
--
Jan Kara <j...@suse.com>
SUSE Labs, CR
_______________________________________________
linux-um mailing list
linux-um@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-um
