From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751061AbVIQK4r (ORCPT ); Sat, 17 Sep 2005 06:56:47 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751064AbVIQK4r (ORCPT ); Sat, 17 Sep 2005 06:56:47 -0400 Received: from 167.imtp.Ilyichevsk.Odessa.UA ([195.66.192.167]:48259 "HELO port.imtp.ilyichevsk.odessa.ua") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1751061AbVIQK4r (ORCPT ); Sat, 17 Sep 2005 06:56:47 -0400 From: Denis Vlasenko To: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: I request inclusion of reiser4 in the mainline kernel Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2005 13:56:14 +0300 User-Agent: KMail/1.8.2 Cc: Hans Reiser , Andrew Morton , Linus Torvalds , LKML , ReiserFS List References: <432AFB44.9060707@namesys.com> <432B1F84.3000902@namesys.com> <20050917092247.GA13992@infradead.org> In-Reply-To: <20050917092247.GA13992@infradead.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200509171356.14497.vda@ilport.com.ua> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Saturday 17 September 2005 12:22, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 12:39:48PM -0700, Hans Reiser wrote: > > Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > > >additinoal comment is that the code is very messy, very different > > >from normal kernel style, full of indirections and thus hard to read. > > > > > > > Most of my customers remark that Namesys code is head and shoulders > > above the rest of the kernel code. So yes, it is different. In > > particular, they cite the XFS code as being so incredibly hard to read > > that its unreadability is worth hundreds of thousands of dollars in > > license fees for me. That's cash received, from persons who read it > > all, not commentary made idly. > > It's very different from kernel style, and it's hard to read for us kernel > developers. And yes, I don't think XFS is the most easy to read code either, > quite contrary. But it's at least half a magnitude less bad than reiser4 > code.. At least reiser4 is smaller. IIRC xfs is older than reiser4 and had more time to optimize code size, but: reiser4 2557872 bytes xfs 3306782 bytes -- vda