On Tue, 13 Jun 2000, James Sutherland wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Jun 2000, Alan Cox wrote:
>
> > > I've heard a couple of horror stories about RFS chewing up data. Frankly,
> > > whether it loses data or not isn't relevant at this point. You will,
> >
> > Its very relevant that a file system never loses data - it should panic the
> > box rather than do that. That one doesnt worry me for a different reason -
> > I know Hans cares a great deal about his fs actually working right.
>
> Interesting; I remember not too long ago some reference to a problem (a
> race condition somewhere, IIRC), to which the reply was "I've run a
> benchmark and that worked OK". It wasn't Hans himself who said that, but
> the comment still reflected badly on the team.
>
Yes, one of the reiserfs team members replied out of context. I had asked
for some help in testing a different problem, and that was what he was
replying to. The whole thing was quickly cleared up (as quickly as
possible given list lag at the time). I fail to see how this relates to
how much we care about the quality of the product.
> Right now, there seems to be far too much effort going into "Force the
> code as it is into the kernel right now", and too little into "OK, it's
> not ready to go into 2.4.0, we need to do X, Y and Z."
Andi Kleen posted last week what x y and z were. We understand the tasks
at hand.
-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 : Thu Jun 15 2000 - 21:00:28 EST