Re: silent semantic changes with reiser4

[Redeeman <redeeman@metanurb.dk>]

On Thu, 2004-08-26 at 01:31 -0700, Hans Reiser wrote:
> Andrew Morton wrote:
> 
> >Hans Reiser <reiser@namesys.com> wrote:
> >  
> >
> >>I had not intended to respond to this because I have nothing positive to 
> >>say, but Andrew said I needed to respond and suggested I should copy 
> >>Linus.
> >>    
> >>
> >
> >Yes, but I didn't say "flame Christoph and ignore the issues" ;)
> >  
> >
> Oh....;-)
> 
> >There are lots of little things to do with implementation, coding style,
> >module exports, deadlocks, what code goes where, etc.  These are all normal
> >daily kernel business and we should set them aside for now and concentrate
> >on the bigger issues.
> >  
> >
> Yes, you are right, but I am not sure Viro will go along with that..... ;-)
> 
> >And as I see it, there are two big issues:
> >
> >a) reiser4 extends the Linux API in ways which POSIX/Unix/etc do not
> >   anticipate and 
> >
> >b) it does this within the context of just a single filesystem.
> >
> >I see three possible responses:
> >
> >a) accept the reiser4-only extensions as-is (possibly with post-review
> >   modifications, of course) or
> >
> >b) accept the reiser4-only extensions with a view to turning them into
> >   kernel-wide extensions at some time in the future, so all filesystems
> >   will offer the extensions (as much as poss) or
> >
> >c) reject the extensions.
> >
> >
> >My own order of preference is b) c) a). 
> >
> I don't object to b), though I think b) should wait for 2.7 and reiser4 
> should not.
> 
> > The fact that one filesystem will
> >offer features which other filesystems do not and cannot offer makes me
> >queasy for some reason.
> >  
> >
> Andrew, we need to compete with WinFS and Dominic Giampaolo's filesystem 
> for Apple, and that means we need to put search engine and database 
> functionality into the filesystem.  It takes 11 years of serious 
> research to build a clean storage layer able to handle doing that.  
> Reiser4 has done that, finally.  None of the other Linux filesystems 
> have.  The next major release of ReiserFS is going to be bursting with 
> semantic enhancements, because the prerequisites for them are in place 
> now.  None of the other Linux filesystems have those prerequisites.  
> They won't be able to keep up with the semantic enhancements.  This 
> metafiles and file-directories stuff is actually fairly trivial stuff.
> 
> Look guys, in 1993 I anticipated the battle would be here, and I build 
> the foundation for a defensive tower right at the spot MS and Apple are 
> now maneuvering towards.  Help me get the next level on the tower before 
> they get here.  It is one hell of a foundation, they won't be able to 
> shake it, their trees are not as powerful.  Don't move reiser4 into vfs, 
> use reiser4 as the vfs.  Don't write filesystems, write file plugins and 
> disk format plugins and all the other kinds of plugins, and you won't be 
> missing any expressive power that you really want....
> 
couldnt be more true

> Give Saveliev and I some credit.  10 years of hard work at an ivory 
> tower nobody thought mattered.  Now the battle leaves the browser and 
> swings our way.  Don't duplicate that infrastructure, use it. 
> 
> There is so much we could use help with if talented people like you 
> chose to contribute.
> 
> >b) means that at some time in the future we need to hoist the reiser4
> >extensions (at a conceptual level) (and probably with restrictions) up into
> >the VFS.  This will involve much thought, argument and work.
> >
> >
> >To get us started on this route it would really help me (and, probably,
> >others) if you could describe what these API extensions are in a very
> >simple way, without referring to incomprehehsible web pages,
> >
> what is not comprehensible....?
> 
> > and without
> >using terms which non-reiser4 people don't understand.
> >  
> >
> Well, I agree that there is value in defining things in more detail than 
> we have.
> 
> >It would be best if each extension was addressed in a separate email
> >thread.
> >
> >We also need to discuss what a reiser4 "module" is, what its capabilities
> >are, and what licensing implications they have.
> >
> >Then, we can look at each one and say "yup, that makes sense - we want
> >Linux to do that" and we can also think about how we would implement it at
> >the VFS level.
> >
> >If we follow the above route I believe we can make progress in a technical
> >direction and not get deadlocked on personal/political stuff.
> >
> >
> >Now, an alternative to all the above is to just merge reiser4 as-is, after
> >addressing all the lower-level coding issues.  And see what happens.  That
> >may be a thing which Linus wishes to do.  I'm easy.
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> 
> 
-- 
Redeeman <redeeman@metanurb.dk>