Re: [PATCH 0/7] arch/*: config: Remove ReiserFS from defconfig

Jan Kara <[email protected]> Wed, 20 Sep 2023 18:56:59 +0200
Newsgroups gmane.comp.file-systems.reiserfs.general,gmane.linux.ports.alpha,gmane.linux.ports.arm.kernel,gmane.linux.kernel,gmane.linux.ports.m68k,gmane.linux.ports.mips,gmane.linux.ports.sh.devel,gmane.linux.uml.devel,gmane.linux.ports.ppc64.devel
Message-ID <20230920165659.coe7d2lydiaatoby@quack3>
On Tue 19-09-23 18:02:39, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Hi Peter,
> 
> On Tue, Sep 19, 2023 at 5:58 PM Peter Lafreniere <[email protected]> wrote:
> >  2) Stops building an obsolete and largely-unused filesystem unnecessarily.
> >     Some hobbyist targets like m68k and alpha may prefer to keep all filesystems
> >     available until total removal, but others like arm and UML have no need for
> >     ReiserFS to be built unless specifically configured.
> 
> As UML is used a lot for testing, isn't it actually counter-productive
> to remove ReiserFS from the UML defconfig?  The less testing it
> receives, the higher the chance of introducing regressions.

The only testing I know about for reiserfs (besides build testing) is
syzbot. And regarding the people / bots doing filesystem testing I know
none of them uses UML. Rather it is x86 VMs these days where reiserfs is
disabled in the defconfig for a *long* time (many years). Also when you do
filesystem testing, you usually just test the few filesystems you care
about and for which you have all the tools installed. So frankly I don't
see a good reason to leave reiserfs enabled in defconfigs. But sure if
m68k or other arch wants to keep reiserfs in it's defconfig for some
consistency reasons, I'm fine with it. I just suspect that for most archs
this is just a historical reason.

								Honza
-- 
Jan Kara <[email protected]>
SUSE Labs, CR