From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261528AbVFZFHo (ORCPT ); Sun, 26 Jun 2005 01:07:44 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261534AbVFZFHo (ORCPT ); Sun, 26 Jun 2005 01:07:44 -0400 Received: from wproxy.gmail.com ([64.233.184.198]:14522 "EHLO wproxy.gmail.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261528AbVFZFHj convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Sun, 26 Jun 2005 01:07:39 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=jpxtW1FZ9RaItFBrISbU31ONRdoGk/AxQVR0DGrM3V9JmF6V/ajdUIH/gHnE+vkL6pPDOWTjlZBRXqfEMNkCDgiN0XY+RBM9k1e8R1raxJkuGQext+hbTtrCdia5v8kxubA7Td8OYvepD9Z9Z6jQskRNg1/YyN3dBVRaWhXYsks= Message-ID: Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2005 01:07:38 -0400 From: Gregory Maxwell Reply-To: Gregory Maxwell To: Lincoln Dale Subject: Re: reiser4 plugins Cc: Hans Reiser , Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu, David Masover , Horst von Brand , Jeff Garzik , Christoph Hellwig , Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, ReiserFS List In-Reply-To: <42BE3645.4070806@cisco.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Disposition: inline References: <200506240241.j5O2f1eb005609@laptop11.inf.utfsm.cl> <42BCD93B.7030608@slaphack.com> <200506251420.j5PEKce4006891@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> <42BDA377.6070303@slaphack.com> <200506252031.j5PKVb4Y004482@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> <42BDC422.6020401@namesys.com> <42BE3645.4070806@cisco.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 6/26/05, Lincoln Dale wrote: > the l-k community have asked YOU may times. any lack of response isn't > because of the kernel cabal .. its because YOU are refusing to entertain > any notion that what Reiser4 has implemented is unpalatable to the > kernel community. A lot of this is based on misconceptions, for example in recent times reiser4 is faulted for layering violations.. But it doesn't have them, it neither duplicates nor modifies the VFS. It has also been requested that reiser4 be changed to move some of it's operations above the VFS... not only would that not make sense for the currently provided functions, but merging was put off previously because of changes to the VFS.... now that it doesn't change the VFS we are asking hans to push it off until it does?? It's a filesysem for gods sake. Hans and his team have worked hard to minimize its impact and they are still willing to accept more guidance, even if their patience has started to run a little thin. The acceptance of reiser4 into the mainline shouldn't be any larger deal than any other filesystem, but yet it is...