Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2002 13:09:27 +0300 From: Hans Reiser <reiser@namesys.com> To: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> Cc: Chris Mason <mason@suse.com>, Josh MacDonald <jmacd@CS.Berkeley.EDU>, Parity Error <bootup@mail.ru>, freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG, reiserfs-dev@namesys.com Subject: Re: [reiserfs-dev] Re: metadata update durability ordering/soft updates Message-ID: <3C946B57.3060403@namesys.com> References: <E16lReK-000C3T-00@f10.mail.ru> <3C910C57.71C2D823@mindspring.com> <20020315065651.02637@helen.CS.Berkeley.EDU> <3C923C91.454D7710@mindspring.com> <1562810000.1016224776@tiny> <3C928D21.404EA11D@mindspring.com> <1714680000.1016298986@tiny> <3C93BBF1.7E8801DF@mindspring.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Terry Lambert wrote: >Chris Mason wrote: > >>Claim 44 is probably the most difficult, although I think this: >> >>"where said common writes and said function calls have common order >>dependencies CD1, CD2, . . . , CDcd that preserve the update order >>dependencies D1, D2, . . . , Dd between the operations in the requests, >>where cd is an integer, " >> >>Restricts it to systems that preserve the ordering of the requests >>inside the combined common write. In other words, if I batch >>mkdir foo ; mkdir foo2 into a common write, I think it says that >>mkdir foo will be done first. >> > >I can tell you from my experience with the source code that >this is not true, unless both updates occur in the same >directory entry block of the same directory. > > > > >>If this has been discussed in detail already, please drop me a link >>to the mailing list archive. >> > >It has come up on a number of mailing lists in the past; >the FreeBSD mailing lists generally get a snapshot of it >whenever anyone suggests porting ReiserFS to FreeBSD. > >Do a search for "ReiserFS" in the FreeBSD mailing list >archives, and you should be able to find it. > >Personally, I'd prefer not to discuss it in the level of >detail required for a legal defense against patent claims, >since I believe that ReiserFS would lose, and I'd rather >not be the person manufacturing the bullets for the gun >that shoots it. > >Realize that Novell holds the patents that were executed >(such that they could then be assigned) during the time >that USL was owned by Novell. So SCO buying USL and >Caldera buying SCO doesn't give those patents a "get out >of jail free" card. 8-(. > >-- Terry > > Oh this is crap. There is nothing that Chris does in our journaling code that wasn't already done in databases for years before this patent was issued. (Chris, while you implement better than they did, I don't think your architecture is at all new.) As for your claiming you don't want to discuss it, this is bullshit, you are spreading FUD about our product in a potential future market for ReiserFS in a manner that could discourage someone from paying for the port. This is extremely irresponsible. Don't pretend to be friendly, your actions are quite harmful and irresponsible. Hans To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-fs" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3C946B57.3060403>