On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 08:13:51PM +0200, Marco Stornelli wrote: > Il 09/09/2013 01:40, Dave Chinner ha scritto: > >On Sat, Sep 07, 2013 at 10:14:04AM +0200, Marco Stornelli wrote: > >>Hi all, > >> > >>this is an attempt to include pramfs in mainline. At the moment pramfs > >>has been included in LTSI kernel. Since last review the code is more > >>or less the same but, with a really big thanks to Vladimir Davydov and > >>Parallels, the development of fsck has been started and we have now > >>the possibility to correct fs errors due to corruption. It's a "young" > >>tool but we are working on it. You can clone the code from our repos: > >> > >>git clone git://git.code.sf.net/p/pramfs/code pramfs-code > >>git clone git://git.code.sf.net/p/pramfs/Tools pramfs-Tools > > > >The 1980s are calling, and they want their filesytem back. :) > > > >So, Devil's Advocate time. Convince me as to why pramfs should be > >merged. > > > > Never used in my embedded project with more of few mb, and maybe you > are asking for cases not targeted. Pramfs is in LTSI not why I asked > Greg to include it, but because there are several companies asked me > to do. The message wasn't "hey, pramfs is in LTSI, so we must > include it in mainline" but it was only a consideration and > indication that there is need of something like that out there. Sure > we can talk about if it's the best option or not, however this is > the real world. Then lets talk about whether it's the best solution or not. You've said "too hard, I'm going home" the moment someone has asked hard questions and pointed out problems. You haven't even attempted to discuss the issues or explain why things were done in the way they have been done. Instead, you've just cut all the context out completely and handwaved about time to market issues and upstream being unfriendly. News Flash: I'm not here to be your friend. I'm here to make sure code that is merged is robust and solid and solves the problems we know need to be solved. I know that we need a solution to persistent memory storage, but pramfs has many deficiencies and doesn't address the requirements that vendors of emerging technologies have communicated to us in various public forums. You may not know about these requirements - that's part of the iterative peer review process - you learn about other people's requirements for the technology and try to address them or explain why you're not going to handle those cases... > It's not possible to have a 10 years review. It's a never > ending story. Filesystems architectures last much longer than 10 years. Suitablity of the current filesystem architecture for known medium- and long-term needs is definitely part of any code review. There's lots of people on -fsdevel that have the knowledge and experience to be able to do this sort of review.... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx -- 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
