Hans Reiser <[email protected]> writes:
> Nikita, I respectfully disagree with what you say about the state of our
> atomicity code. It is not so far away as you describe, and probably 6
> man weeks work could polish it off. You don't see the value in what I
> define as useful, namely atomicity without isolation. Since you don't
> see that, it is harder for you to see that something is close to working
> and just needs 6 weeks of someone who groks what I am asking for.
No, I see the value of "atomicity", and think it is very useful. What I
don't see the value of is the making of premature claims.
_When_ reiser4 has atomic write(2), you have full right to call it
atomic, not before.
_When_ reiser4 is tested through objective benchmark-set exercising
various workloads, you can refer to these benchmarks as the proof of
reiser4 technical superiority, not before.
On a more personal note, I invested large amount of my time and effort
into developing reiser4, and I feel attached to it and to the great
ideas embodied in it. For reiser4 to rot on the forgotten shelf in
obscurity is the thing I want least. I want it to be included into
mainline kernel, but for this to happen, you have to take more realistic
stance towards err... reality.
>
> Hans
Nikita.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
