linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/7] OMFS filesystem version 3

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sun, 13 Apr 2008 22:48:00 -0700
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Bob Copeland <me@...copeland.com>
Cc:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
	Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>, hch@...radead.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] OMFS filesystem version 3

On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 21:32:48 -0400 Bob Copeland <me@...copeland.com> wrote:

> On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 04:10:14PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 23:49:20 +0100 Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote:
> > > > 	This filesystem has only 20 users.
> > 
> > None of that means that merging this filesystem is the best decision.
> 
> Well, 20 may have been aiming just a tad low.  I'd never make it in sales.
> Here are the stats from linux-karma.sf.net:
> 
>  - most recent release, for 2.6.25: 36 downloads since 3/16/08
>  - # subscribers on mailing list: 39 [1]
>  - most # of downloads of a given release: 252 (May-Oct 2007) [2]
> 
> [1] Some subscribers may not use the FS at all since there is also
> software for using the ethernet interface.  Both are discussed on 
> the list.
> 
> [2] I doubt that 252 d/ls translates to that many _current_ users; a
> year is a long time in consumer electronics.  I don't have stats on 
> unique IPs.
> 
> I'm unaware of ReplayTV users - one guy contacted me once and then
> disappeared.

OK.

> > Merging a new filesystem has costs - I don't need to enumerate them.  Do
> > the benefits of OMFS exceed them?
> 
> You guys would know best.  I can see both arguments...

Well as I say - no strong opinions either way here.  It just seems a bit
odd to burden the kernel with an additional fs for such a small user base
when either options exist.

OTOH when we merge a new fs that also has the side-effect of increasing the
active developer base - the maintainers of the fs fix other stuff.  And
I'll do anything to get some acpi bugs fixed ;)

So.. whatever.  I'll keep a look out for v4.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/