Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S264225AbUD0SGj (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Apr 2004 14:06:39 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S264254AbUD0SGi (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Apr 2004 14:06:38 -0400 Received: from phoenix.infradead.org ([213.86.99.234]:16645 "EHLO phoenix.infradead.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S264225AbUD0SEm (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Apr 2004 14:04:42 -0400 Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2004 19:04:39 +0100 From: Christoph Hellwig To: Hans Reiser Cc: Chris Mason , Linus Torvalds , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, reiserfs-list@namesys.com, akpm@osdl.org Subject: Re: I oppose Chris and Jeff's patch to add an unnecessary additional namespace to ReiserFS Message-ID: <20040427190439.A20646@infradead.org> Mail-Followup-To: Christoph Hellwig , Hans Reiser , Chris Mason , Linus Torvalds , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, reiserfs-list@namesys.com, akpm@osdl.org References: <1082750045.12989.199.camel@watt.suse.com> <408D3FEE.1030603@namesys.com> <20040426203314.A6973@infradead.org> <408E986F.90506@namesys.com> <20040427183400.A20221@infradead.org> <408E9F42.2080804@namesys.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: <408E9F42.2080804@namesys.com>; from reiser@namesys.com on Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 10:58:26AM -0700 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1516 Lines: 33 On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 10:58:26AM -0700, Hans Reiser wrote: > Ask the users whether their laptops, etc., seem to go a lot faster with > V4. They seem to be pretty happy with it. > > V4 fixed all of V3's serious performance flaws, and totally obsoletes > it. I am very happy with it. Hans, that's not what we're discussing in this thread. I don't give a shit whether filesystem A is fater than filesystem B on task C. Really, how fast a fs is an implementation details. I also still think someone who does most work in the last years on a fs (Chris on reiserfs v3) should be considered maintainer, but that's just my 2cents and I'd rather leave that to you guys. The important part is xattr/acl/namespace semantics. In Linux those semantics are at the _VFS_ level, not at the individual filesystem, in fact if a fs can mess with namespace semantics I'd almost considere that a bug. So if you want different xattr/acl semantics after you ignored all the discussion has been going on the last years start *now* to discuss you proposal on -fsdevel, and acl-devel, explaining why your semantics are better and hash out the implementation details to support both transparently. Funneling in new semantics through a low level driver is pretty much always wrong. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/