[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: state or future of LFS?
On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 05:35:11PM +0000, Wouter Klouwen wrote:
> > So this means there is no one interested further in LFS?
> No one with enough time to develop it further seems interested. :(
> I would, but time simply doesn't permit me.
While LFS is broken right now and is going to stay broken in 5.0,
there's interest in getting it fixed for 6.0. This is not trivial; the
LFS code has always had severe locking problems and what broke it this
time was the move to fine-grained SMP locking in the kernel.
(vmlocking2, for those who follow things closely.)
This may or may not be a viable proposition, and I may or may not be
able to find time to put into it, since I don't have much time total
and other things, like VFS-level cleanup, are really more important.
But it's not (yet) dead.
There's also another log-structured FS in development, called "nilfs",
which might be an alternative. It's also been suggested that doing a
fresh port of the Sprite LFS code might be better in the long run than
trying to fix what we have.
David A. Holland
Main Index |
Thread Index |