From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750871AbVIRKV5 (ORCPT ); Sun, 18 Sep 2005 06:21:57 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750876AbVIRKV5 (ORCPT ); Sun, 18 Sep 2005 06:21:57 -0400 Received: from 167.imtp.Ilyichevsk.Odessa.UA ([195.66.192.167]:65187 "HELO port.imtp.ilyichevsk.odessa.ua") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1750871AbVIRKV5 (ORCPT ); Sun, 18 Sep 2005 06:21:57 -0400 From: Denis Vlasenko To: chriswhite@gentoo.org Subject: Re: I request inclusion of reiser4 in the mainline kernel Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2005 13:21:23 +0300 User-Agent: KMail/1.8.2 Cc: Christoph Hellwig , Hans Reiser , LKML , ReiserFS List References: <432AFB44.9060707@namesys.com> <200509171415.50454.vda@ilport.com.ua> <200509180934.50789.chriswhite@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <200509180934.50789.chriswhite@gentoo.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="koi8-r" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200509181321.23211.vda@ilport.com.ua> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sunday 18 September 2005 03:34, Chris White wrote: > CC-List trimmed > > On Saturday 17 September 2005 20:15, Denis Vlasenko wrote: > > > 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 > > > > And modules sizes: > > > > reiser4.ko 442012 bytes > > xfs.ko 494337 bytes > > All this is fine and dandy, but saying "My code is better than yours!!" still > doesn't solve the issue this thread hopes to achieve, that being "I'd like to > get reiser4 into the kernel". There seems to be a lot of (historical?) > tension present here, but all that seems to be doing is making things worse. > PLEASE keep this thing a tad on par. Keeping this up is hurting everyone > more than helping. I wish I could say something as simple as "let's just be > friends", but that's saying a lot. I can say this though: this is open > source, and that means that our source is open, and we should be too. I am trying to say that I think that Hans is being treated a bit unfairly. His fs is new and has fairly complex on-disk structure and complex journalling machinery, yet his source and object code is smaller than xfs which already is accepted. This is no easy feat I guess. Maybe xfs shouldn't be accepted too, this may be an answer. Let's look at the code. Hans' code is not _that_ awful. Yet people (not all of them, but some) do not point to specific things which they want to be fixed/improved. I see blanket arguments like "your code is hard to read". Well. Maybe spend a minute on what exactly is hard to read, or do we require Hans to be able to read minds from the distance? This is it. I do not say "accept reiser4 NOW", I am saying "give Hans good code review". -- vda