Re: [PATCH 0/7] arch/*: config: Remove ReiserFS from defconfig
Jan Kara <[email protected]> Wed, 20 Sep 2023 18:56:59 +0200
| Newsgroups | org.kernel.vger.reiserfs-devel,org.infradead.lists.linux-arm-kernel,org.infradead.lists.linux-um,org.kernel.vger.linux-alpha,org.kernel.vger.linux-kernel,org.kernel.vger.linux-m68k,org.kernel.vger.linux-mips,org.kernel.vger.linux-sh,org.ozlabs.lists.linuxppc-dev |
|---|---|
| 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