Hi Hans,
On 25/06/2005 12:38 a.m., Hans Reiser wrote:
fsck is better in V4 than it is in V3. Users should move from V3 to V4,
as V3 is obsolete. I agree on that Ted.
Perhaps before moving to V4, reiser4progs-1.04 (the most recent I think) could
be made to compile with gcc4/fedora core 4 syste
On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 00:01:39 -0400, Horst von Brand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> David Masover <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
>> Also, space is not so cheap that I won't take 25% more.
> It is cheap enough that I can't realistically fill the disks I have
> with /usefull/ stuff. So...
And sinc
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Lincoln Dale wrote:
> Hans Reiser wrote:
>
>> There has been no response to the technical email asking for what
>> exactly it is that is duplicative, and what exactly it is that ought to
>> be changed in how the code works, as opposed to what file the
On 6/26/05, Lincoln Dale <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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
Hans Reiser wrote:
There has been no response to the technical email asking for what
exactly it is that is duplicative, and what exactly it is that ought to
be changed in how the code works, as opposed to what file the code is
placed in, or who is considered its maintainer.There has been no
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Horst von Brand wrote:
> David Masover <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>Horst von Brand wrote:
>>
>>>David Masover <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
Horst von Brand wrote:
>David Masover <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>Hans Reiser wrote
Think of reiser4 as being designed to be 90% library routines, and 10%
program. Now, can these libraries be used by other filesystems? Why
yes, some can. How many of them should be used by other filesystems?
Reality: few people are going to rewrite their existing filesytems to
mostly use our
David Masover <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Horst von Brand wrote:
> > David Masover <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>Horst von Brand wrote:
> >>>David Masover <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hans Reiser wrote:
> >Jeff Garzik wrote:
[...]
> >>"Ain't broke" is the battle cry of stagnation.
> >
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 13:33:27 CDT, David Masover said:
>
>>>Now *think* for a moment - how does a hypothetical Reiser4 using ext3 format
>>>gain any speed advantage with small files, when the speed advantage is based
>>>on us
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hubert Chan wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 16:31:37 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
>
> [...]
>
>
>>Meanwhile, PGP was designed to be used in an environment where you
>>could do this: "Today's secret plans are AES256 encrypted. The key is
>>the next k
Hans Reiser schrieb:
Christian Trefzer wrote:
Hubert Chan schrieb:
How about something of the form "nikita-955(file:line)"? Or the
reverse: "file:line(nikita-955)". Would that keep everyone happy?
Makes me happy.
Nice, how about the others?
Hey, if we need some objective and ne
Christian Trefzer wrote:
> Hubert Chan schrieb:
>
>> How about something of the form "nikita-955(file:line)"? Or the
>> reverse: "file:line(nikita-955)". Would that keep everyone happy?
>>
Makes me happy.
Theodore Ts'o wrote:
>On Sat, Jun 25, 2005 at 12:23:41PM -0700, Hans Reiser wrote:
>
>
assert("trace_hash-89", is_hashed(foo) != 0);
>>Lots of people like corporate anonymity. Some don't. I don't. I like
>>knowing who wrote what. It helps me know who to pay
Hubert Chan schrieb:
How about something of the form "nikita-955(file:line)"? Or the
reverse: "file:line(nikita-955)". Would that keep everyone happy?
Damn, I was wondering how long it would take until someone would come up
with a compromise solution ; ) Compromises everywhere will lead to
n
On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 16:31:37 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
[...]
> Meanwhile, PGP was designed to be used in an environment where you
> could do this: "Today's secret plans are AES256 encrypted. The key is
> the next key in your one-time-pad book, XOR'ed with your 128-bit
> secret key - do it i
On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 12:23:41 -0700, Hans Reiser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>>> assert("trace_hash-89", is_hashed(foo) != 0);
> Lots of people like corporate anonymity. Some don't. I don't. I
> like knowing who wrote what. ...
For what it's worth (I know: not much), I like the named asserts in
On Sat, Jun 25, 2005 at 12:23:41PM -0700, Hans Reiser wrote:
> >>
> >>assert("trace_hash-89", is_hashed(foo) != 0);
> >>
> Lots of people like corporate anonymity. Some don't. I don't. I like
> knowing who wrote what. It helps me know who to pay how much. It helps
> me know who to forw
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hmm.. let's see.. I said Reiser isn't in because it shouldn't be
> screwing with
>
>the VFS, and said stuff should be done separate from the Reiser4 filesystem.
>
>
We don't touch a line of VFS code. We look like a normal fs at the
interface.
Shall we send in a file
On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 13:33:27 CDT, David Masover said:
> > Now *think* for a moment - how does a hypothetical Reiser4 using ext3 format
> > gain any speed advantage with small files, when the speed advantage is based
> > on using a format other than ext3?
> happen in RAM. If you do a ton of work w
Pekka Enberg wrote:
>
>
>On Thu, 2005-06-23 at 21:32 +0200, Jens Axboe wrote:
>
>
>>That said, I don't like the reiser name-number style. If you must do
>>something like this, mark responsibility by using a named identifier
>>covering the layer in question instead.
>>
>>assert("trace_has
On Wednesday 22 June 2005 05:18, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Hans Reiser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > What is wrong with having an encryption plugin implemented in this
> > manner? What is wrong with being able to have some files implemented
> > using a compression plugin, and others in the same fi
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 23:10:35 CDT, David Masover said:
>
>
>>But Linux is better. DOS ain't broke, but Linux is better. So maybe
>>VFS ain't broke, but plugins would be better. I guess we'll only know
>>if we let Reiser4
Hi,
On Thu, 2005-06-23 at 21:32 +0200, Jens Axboe wrote:
> then it's impossible to know which one it is without the identical
> source at hand.
In which case, debugging is risky IMO (the source code could have
changed a lot).
On Thu, 2005-06-23 at 21:32 +0200, Jens Axboe wrote:
> That said, I do
El Fri, 24 Jun 2005 21:31:02 -0700,
Hans Reiser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escribió:
> What exactly is not ready Jeff? As I see it, this thread is 95%
> posturing, and almost no technical reasons for not merging. These
> "authorities"seem perfectly content with echoing the words of someone
> who skimm
On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 23:10:35 CDT, David Masover said:
> But Linux is better. DOS ain't broke, but Linux is better. So maybe
> VFS ain't broke, but plugins would be better. I guess we'll only know
> if we let Reiser4 merge...
No, we'll only know if we merge something that does plugins at the VF
Hi,
Here my personal opinion of merging:
I would find it very usefull the have reiserfs merged into the main
kernel, but I think the kernel developers should be able to decide how
they want things in. I would propose to continue discussion with kernel
developers in order to determine actually
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jesper Krogh wrote:
> ["Followup-To:" header set to gmane.linux.kernel.]
> I gmane.linux.kernel, skrev David Masover:
>
>>>Most desktop users today don't have backups because there is no credible
>>>backup technology for 500Gb of data. They may have p
["Followup-To:" header set to gmane.linux.kernel.]
I gmane.linux.kernel, skrev David Masover:
> > Most desktop users today don't have backups because there is no credible
> > backup technology for 500Gb of data. They may have partial backups. Some
>
> Bandwidth is getting faster. And I just foun
28 matches
Mail list logo
