Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1480961 > unrolled thread

Re: [PATCH] logfs: remove from tree

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: [PATCH] logfs: remove from tree Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@gmail.com> - 2016-09-12 09:00 +0200
    Re: [PATCH] logfs: remove from tree "Austin S. Hemmelgarn" <ahferroin7@gmail.com> - 2016-09-12 18:00 +0200

#1480961 — Re: [PATCH] logfs: remove from tree

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@lst.de>

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.

Artem.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1481511

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@lst.de>
>
> 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.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web