Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Message-ID: <0661e73f-9420-9a0a-ef46-15b54a3b5357@skogtun.org>
Date:   Fri, 13 Jan 2023 14:08:47 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.6.1
Subject: Re: Should we orphan JFS?
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
        Dave Kleikamp <shaggy@kernel.org>
Cc:     jfs-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net,
        linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <Y8DvK281ii6yPRcW@infradead.org>
From:   Harald Arnesen <harald@skogtun.org>
In-Reply-To: <Y8DvK281ii6yPRcW@infradead.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

Christoph Hellwig [13/01/2023 06.42]:

> Hi all,
> 
> A while ago we've deprecated reiserfs and scheduled it for removal.
> Looking into the hairy metapage code in JFS I wonder if we should do
> the same.  While JFS isn't anywhere as complicated as reiserfs, it's
> also way less used and never made it to be the default file system
> in any major distribution.  It's also looking pretty horrible in
> xfstests, and with all the ongoing folio work and hopeful eventual
> phaseout of buffer head based I/O path it's going to be a bit of a drag.
> (Which also can be said for many other file system, most of them being
> a bit simpler, though).

The Norwegian ISP/TV provider used to have IPTV-boxes which had JFS on 
the hard disk that was used to record TV programmes.

However, I don't think these boxes are used anymore.
-- 
Hilsen Harald