On Tue, 6 Jun 2000, Alan Cox wrote:
> > The generic journal layer might not be a bad idea. Stephen and I have
> > really duplicated efforts, and that is a waste. I'm more than willing to
> > make a go at integrating a generic logging system into the reiserfs code
> > base.
>
> Don't blindly follow Stephen's code either. Im sure the best of happens not
> to be entirely in one code base.
>
;-) I don't think either FS will get through 2.5 without a major logging
overhaul. I've got some hash tables I would love to throw out, and
will probably integrate all the logging into the page cache.
> > But, reiserfs 3.6 has come a long way. I feel it is worth putting into
> > the kernel soon (I would love to see reports of *heavy* testing), and I
>
> I get requests for reiserfs to be included every so often, and some of them
> are coupled to things like 'runs fine on our 200Gb build array'. Its
> certainly getting some good testing
>
Well, we need to be careful. Our 2.2 code has been tested by many
people. But, there is a lot of new code in the 2.4 reiserfs, and I would
love to see a flood of email telling us the old format support is working
well on people's test machines (which all have recent, verified backups
too).
thanks,
Chris
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jun 07 2000 - 21:00:23 EST