Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S964877AbVITEQp (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Sep 2005 00:16:45 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S964878AbVITEQp (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Sep 2005 00:16:45 -0400 Received: from smtp200.mail.sc5.yahoo.com ([216.136.130.125]:39760 "HELO smtp200.mail.sc5.yahoo.com") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S964877AbVITEQp (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Sep 2005 00:16:45 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com.au; h=Received:Message-ID:Date:From:User-Agent:X-Accept-Language:MIME-Version:To:CC:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=PbMxrLRBOfwYIJDmxYQOZSr0Oncd+62Zpt6k/6eX6NFZFNJuI/ujYEPG/7SaJsSI3QHg7yOv2DB3AK/2gtGOrxH76ilU0jsNlflv+15q+HdexvbOXvPCf7GunSFBt4dVQktCk42QyRv/S5G27+nJHBEoaO8RETZReG+Eu34EYAc= ; Message-ID: <432F8D1E.7060300@yahoo.com.au> Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 14:16:30 +1000 From: Nick Piggin User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.8) Gecko/20050513 Debian/1.7.8-1 X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Hans Reiser CC: Alan Cox , thenewme91@gmail.com, Christoph Hellwig , Denis Vlasenko , chriswhite@gentoo.org, LKML , ReiserFS List Subject: Re: I request inclusion of reiser4 in the mainline kernel References: <432AFB44.9060707@namesys.com> <200509171415.50454.vda@ilport.com.ua> <200509180934.50789.chriswhite@gentoo.org> <200509181321.23211.vda@ilport.com.ua> <20050918102658.GB22210@infradead.org> <1127079524.8932.21.camel@localhost.localdomain> <432E4786.7010001@namesys.com> In-Reply-To: <432E4786.7010001@namesys.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1697 Lines: 46 Hans Reiser wrote: >So why is the code in the kernel so hard to read then? > >Linux kernel code is getting better, and Andrew Morton's code is >especially good, but for the most part it's unnecessarily hard to read. >Look at the elevator code for instance. Ugh. > > What's wrong with the elevator code? The elevator code was one of the first things I got involved with as a complete kernel newbie, and I was able to follow the current code well enough to make a new IO scheduler, and extend the elevator API sufficiently to provide the fairly unique capabilities I needed. If it is the elevator *API* you are worried about, that is fairly trivial and well documented by Jens and myself in Documentation/block/biodoc.txt, along with an overview of some key ideas useful for iosched implementors. as-iosched.c itself is IMO reasonably well commented (at least the non-trivial, non-boilerplate functions). That is not to say it is trivial to understand because it is a fairly complex state machine and heuristics, but at less than 2000 lines of very well contained code it is not an impossible task to understand it. If that is too much for you, noop-iosched.c implements a fully working io scheduler in exactly 94 lines, including whitespace and comments. What are your specific concerns? I would be interested in helping to fix any valid ones you have. Thanks, Nick Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com - 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/