linux-kernel - Re: Question about Reiser4

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0704230555020.25153@server.thyself>
Date:	Mon, 23 Apr 2007 05:57:53 +0000 (GMT)
From:	William Heimbigner <icxcnika@....tar.cc>
To:	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
cc:	Eric Hopper <hopper@...ifarious.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Question about Reiser4

> William Heimbigner wrote:
>> >  Eric Hopper wrote:
>> > >   I know that this whole effort has been put in disarray by the
>> > >   prosecution of Hans Reiser, but I'm curious as to its status. 
>> > 
>> >  It was in disarray well before.  Many of the reiser4 features,
>> >  like filesystem plugins, make more technical sense in the Linux
>> >  VFS, but made more business sense for Namesys as a reiserfs 4
>> >  thing.  That lead to a stalemate.
>> >
>>  Shouldn't it be a matter of stability though? 
>
> A lot of other things matter.  Things like a willingness to
> maintain the code after it gets merged, or at least turning
> the code into something the community is willing to maintain
> if the original developers stop maintaining it.
>
>>  Benchmarks suggest that reiser4 is a good file system; reiser4 is the
>>  successor to the already-accepted reiserfs; we've got experimental ext4
>>  support but no reiser4 support, etc.
>
> Namesys kind of abandoned reiserfs after work on reiser4
> started.  Taking in a new code base on such a track record
> is not a good idea when the code is not in a shape where
> the community wants to maintain it.
>
>>  I don't see why something like plugins should matter. If it works enough
>>  to be marked as experimental, why shouldn't reiser4 support be included?
>>  It's a pain for me personally to have to patch any kernel with reiser4
>>  support so I can use the reiser4 fs.
>
> You basically have three options:
>
> 1) keep patching every time you upgrade the kernel
>
> 2) use another filesystem
>
> 3) become the new reiser4 maintainer and turn the code
>    into something that Linus is willing to accept

I suppose. I have a feeling there's an underlying issue behind "code 
standards" (and even then, I think that code standards is ultimately an 
excuse for not integrating reiser4 support into the kernel, but that's 
just my opinion). However, is the code really in such a shape that the 
community doesn't want to maintain it? Obviously there's a significant 
number of people interested in reiser4 - if there weren't, questions like 
this wouldn't keep getting asked.

William Heimbigner
icxcnika@....tar.cc
-
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/