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

Jan Kara <[email protected]>
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
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.