On 2016-09-12 02:55, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
On Sun, 2016-09-11 at 15:04 +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
Logfs was introduced to the kernel in 2009, and hasn't seen any non
drive-by changes since 2012, while having lots of unsolved issues
including the complete lack of error handling, with more and more
issues popping up without any fixes.
The logfs.org domain has been bouncing from a mail, and the
maintainer
on the non-logfs.org domain hasn't repsonded to past queries either.
Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx>
Back in 2008 logfs and UBIFS were in sort of competing projects. I
remember we inspected logfs code and tested it - we did not find proper
wear-levelling and bad block handling, we did not see proper error
handling, and it exploded when we were running relatively simple tests.
We indicated this here in a very humble way to avoid the "conflict of
interest" perseption:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2008/3/31/117
I did not follow logfs since then, but I think there wasn't much
development since then and all these issue are still there. I mean,
unless I am horribly mistaken, logfs does not really have the basic
features of a flash file system and there is no point keeping it in the
tree and consuming people's time maintaining it.
FWIW, I tried testing it about a year ago, and got similar results both
from the tests and from trying to contact the maintainer.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
