From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner+willy=40w.ods.org-S263185AbVFXHMq@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S263185AbVFXHMq (ORCPT <rfc822;willy@w.ods.org>);
	Fri, 24 Jun 2005 03:12:46 -0400
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S263189AbVFXHMq
	(ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel-outgoing>);
	Fri, 24 Jun 2005 03:12:46 -0400
Received: from parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk ([195.92.249.252]:31635 "EHLO
	parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S263185AbVFXHKj (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Fri, 24 Jun 2005 03:10:39 -0400
Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2005 08:11:59 +0100
From: Al Viro <viro@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk>
To: Hans Reiser <reiser@namesys.com>
Cc: Lincoln Dale <ltd@cisco.com>, Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
       David Masover <ninja@slaphack.com>,
       Horst von Brand <vonbrand@inf.utfsm.cl>,
       Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@pobox.com>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
       Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>,
       Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
       ReiserFS List <reiserfs-list@namesys.com>
Subject: Re: reiser4 plugins
Message-ID: <20050624071159.GQ29811@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk>
References: <200506231924.j5NJOvLA031008@laptop11.inf.utfsm.cl> <42BB31E9.50805@slaphack.com> <1119570225.18655.75.camel@localhost.localdomain> <42BB5E1A.70903@namesys.com> <42BB7083.2070107@cisco.com> <42BBAD0F.2040802@namesys.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <42BBAD0F.2040802@namesys.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Thu, Jun 23, 2005 at 11:49:51PM -0700, Hans Reiser wrote:
> Regarding trust, Christophe comes out the gate using the words "useless
> abstraction layer" that happens to be a core feature of our design,
> demanding we cut it out, and not really understanding it or recognizing
> any functionality it provides, and you can't really expect me to respect
> this, can you?
> 
> Now, if his target is reduced to whether we can eliminate a function
> indirection, and whether we can review the code together and see if it
> is easy to extend plugins and pluginids to other filesystems by finding
> places to make it more generic and accepting of per filesystem plugins,
> especially if it is not tied to going into 2.6.13, well, that is the
> conversation I would have liked to have had.

Have I missed the posting with analysis of changes in locking scheme
and update of proof of correctness?  If so, please give the message ID.

_That_ had been the major showstopper for any merges, IIRC.