On Saturday 17 September 2005 12:22, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 12:39:48PM -0700, Hans Reiser wrote: > > Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > > >additinoal comment is that the code is very messy, very different > > >from normal kernel style, full of indirections and thus hard to read. > > > > > > > Most of my customers remark that Namesys code is head and shoulders > > above the rest of the kernel code. So yes, it is different. In > > particular, they cite the XFS code as being so incredibly hard to read > > that its unreadability is worth hundreds of thousands of dollars in > > license fees for me. That's cash received, from persons who read it > > all, not commentary made idly. > > It's very different from kernel style, and it's hard to read for us kernel > developers. And yes, I don't think XFS is the most easy to read code either, > quite contrary. But it's at least half a magnitude less bad than reiser4 > code..
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 -- vda