6 ms·

Sure, but that's been Greg KH's stance on pretty much every kernel module that has no chance of going upstream [1]. "Simple, get your kernel driver into the ma

Sure, but that's been Greg KH's stance on pretty much every kernel module that has no chance of going upstream [1]. "Simple, get your kernel driver into the main kernel tree (remember we are talking about drivers released under a GPL-compatible license here, if your code doesn't fall under this category, good luck, you are on your own here, you leech)." Also in the post you are citing, the technical change makes no reference to ZFS [2] or implies that the motivation is to break out of tree modules. The upstream community simply doesn't even consider out of tree projects when making changes. Whether that's good or bad is another discussion, but I don't see anything that's specific to ZFS. I should also note that to my knowledge, OpenZFS (formerly ZoL) was the only (open source) ZFS implementation that utilized vectorized checksums. At the very least FreeBSD's in-tree ZFS did not have vectorized checksums, as that was listed as one of the features FreeBSD would gain by moving to OpenZFS [3]. So the cited change didn't break ZFS, it just meant those checksums weren't as fast as they used to be. [1] https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/process/stable-api-nonsense.rst https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/process/stable-api-... [2] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=12209993e98c5fa1855c467f22a24e3d5b8be205 https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/lin... [3] https://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current/2018-December/072422.html https://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current/2018-Dec...

nix23 6y ago
>good luck, you are on your own here, you leech Man i just love that warm, lovely atmosphere in that project..and thats not even the leader....ahem sorry dictator (and he is even proud of that)
snvzz 6y ago
Linux just loves good filesystems (not). The way they are handling ZFS reminds me of the way they handled Reiser4, Tux3 and Reiserfs. Basically, any filesystem not made by the filesystem establishment (and their friends) gets bullied. Of course, the only filesystems they can make are all crap like ext4 and btrfs. Fortunately, there's the BSDs, and there's the likes of HAMMER2 from Dragonfly. And, with seL4[0], Fuchsia and HarmonyOS making progress, Linux is going to fall into irrelevance, sooner than most think. Good riddance. [0]: https://sel4.systems/About/seL4-whitepaper.pdf https://sel4.systems/About/seL4-whitepaper.pdf
- morning_gelato 6y ago
  > The way they are handling ZFS reminds me of the way they handled Reiser4, Tux3 and Reiserfs. The latter file systems were trying to be upstreamed and ultimately did not succeed, I don't know of any interest or attempts at upstreaming ZFS. Their handling of ZFS reminds me how they handle any kernel module that will never be upstream, not because some file system establishment sees it as a threat. > Basically, any filesystem not made by the filesystem establishment (and their friends) gets bullied. What/who is the "establishment (and their friends)"? f2fs from Samsung was added in 3.8, erofs from Huawei was added in 5.4, and exfat from Samsung was added in 5.7. Before those file systems were upstreamed I don't think many people would list Samsung and Huawei as part of the filesystem "establishment".
  - nix23 6y ago
    >What/who is the "establishment (and their friends)"? Maybe he thinks of Linux Foundation Platinum Members ;) https://www.linuxfoundation.org/membership/members/ https://www.linuxfoundation.org/membership/members/ XFS is actually really good, but Linux definitely need's a check-summing COW Filesystem that's usable.
    - yjftsjthsd-h 6y ago
      FWIW, we do have CoW on XFS, but yeah no data-checksumming other than BTRFS. Hopefully bcachefs will be the go-to option someday.
      - nix23 6y ago
        Yes true and check-summing for metadata too, but not for the data. I have bigger hopes for XFS then bcachefs (maturity and really great dev's) but hopefully not that Stratis-thing from redhat....that sound's like a terrible idea.
    - snvzz 6y ago
      Writeback latency spikes and lack of data checksums is the main issue with ext4 and xfs. Btrfs has the checksums, but is a toy. To my knowledge, NILFS2 (by NTT) is still the best filesystem Linux has in mainline. And, ironically, practically nobody does use it.

nix23 6y ago

>good luck, you are on your own here, you leech Man i just love that warm, lovely atmosphere in that project..and thats not even the leader....ahem sorry dictator (and he is even proud of that)

snvzz 6y ago

Linux just loves good filesystems (not). The way they are handling ZFS reminds me of the way they handled Reiser4, Tux3 and Reiserfs. Basically, any filesystem not made by the filesystem establishment (and their friends) gets bullied. Of course, the only filesystems they can make are all crap like ext4 and btrfs. Fortunately, there's the BSDs, and there's the likes of HAMMER2 from Dragonfly. And, with seL4[0], Fuchsia and HarmonyOS making progress, Linux is going to fall into irrelevance, sooner than most think. Good riddance. [0]: https://sel4.systems/About/seL4-whitepaper.pdf https://sel4.systems/About/seL4-whitepaper.pdf

morning_gelato 6y ago
> The way they are handling ZFS reminds me of the way they handled Reiser4, Tux3 and Reiserfs. The latter file systems were trying to be upstreamed and ultimately did not succeed, I don't know of any interest or attempts at upstreaming ZFS. Their handling of ZFS reminds me how they handle any kernel module that will never be upstream, not because some file system establishment sees it as a threat. > Basically, any filesystem not made by the filesystem establishment (and their friends) gets bullied. What/who is the "establishment (and their friends)"? f2fs from Samsung was added in 3.8, erofs from Huawei was added in 5.4, and exfat from Samsung was added in 5.7. Before those file systems were upstreamed I don't think many people would list Samsung and Huawei as part of the filesystem "establishment".
- nix23 6y ago
  >What/who is the "establishment (and their friends)"? Maybe he thinks of Linux Foundation Platinum Members ;) https://www.linuxfoundation.org/membership/members/ https://www.linuxfoundation.org/membership/members/ XFS is actually really good, but Linux definitely need's a check-summing COW Filesystem that's usable.
  - yjftsjthsd-h 6y ago
    FWIW, we do have CoW on XFS, but yeah no data-checksumming other than BTRFS. Hopefully bcachefs will be the go-to option someday.
    - nix23 6y ago
      Yes true and check-summing for metadata too, but not for the data. I have bigger hopes for XFS then bcachefs (maturity and really great dev's) but hopefully not that Stratis-thing from redhat....that sound's like a terrible idea.
  - snvzz 6y ago
    Writeback latency spikes and lack of data checksums is the main issue with ext4 and xfs. Btrfs has the checksums, but is a toy. To my knowledge, NILFS2 (by NTT) is still the best filesystem Linux has in mainline. And, ironically, practically nobody does use it.