Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

ZFS On Linux Runs Into A Snag With Linux 5.0

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #11
    If some kernel developers want to be silly about this then I'll be glad to dig out my grep, xargs, sed script that makes everything into ordinary EXPORT.

    I had to use it some time in 2007 for the Nvidia binary.

    Comment


    • #12
      Guess this means this will lead to a fork of kernel 5.x that restores the required symbols? ZFS needs out-of-tree modules already, so might as well need an out-of-tree patched kernel too.

      Comment


      • #13
        Originally posted by k1e0x View Post

        Speculation. The creators of ZFS are human beings like Matt Ahrens who clearly does want it to run on Linux.. but.. if Linux kernel dev's don't want it.. I'm sure FreeBSD will have no problem stealing Linux's market share with it.
        It's not the kernel devs that need to do anything for ZFS to work with Linux that ball is in the ZFS devs court. I am for one happy ZFS is not in Linux for those damn ZFS cultist scare me. And FreeBSD cannot steal Linux market share because they use that retarded BSD license that stops them from growing.

        Comment


        • #14
          My tolerance for ZFS is pretty non-existant. Sun explicitly did not want their code to work on Linux, so why would we do extra work to get their code to work properly?
          Typical Linux kernel dev arrogance. Could also be described as

          Why would we do extra work to get any NIH code to work properly?

          Comment


          • #15
            Just shows how weak the corporate support for Linux is. You have a dozen multi billion companies fawning over Linux and making money off it, but they can't get their asses in gear to finish a filesystem in 10 years.

            Comment


            • #16
              I perfectly understand Greg's attitude, and agree with it. No offense, but this thread seems to be full of people whining about an out-of-tree driver being... unsuported? Colour me surprised! Please do not feel entitled to that support, and consider their point of view before posting.

              I get that this kind of news can be worrying for some, though I must admit ZFS users really look like cultists to me, for the most part. The attitude prevailing with them is similar to that of the XDA "scene" (or most "scenes" for that matter). People cultivating procedures, rumors and legacy instead of understanding what is being done, and improve accordingly (funnily, reminds me of the adeptus mechanicus somewhat).

              Sorry for the rant. I don't want to create a flame war, or hurt someone's feelings (I just woke up with a hangover, so it's hard to judge).

              Comment


              • #17
                Originally posted by aht0 View Post
                Typical Linux kernel dev arrogance. Could also be described as
                Umm... If they are volunteers, they can work on whatever they damn well like.
                And if they are being paid, they have to work on what they are being paid for.

                I'm with [email protected] and garegin on this one - if it is so important to ZFS users, where are their efforts?
                (Whining that others aren't doing what you want without interest or recompense doesn't count as effort, shocking as it may seem!)

                Comment


                • #18
                  "so why would we do extra work to get their code to work properly?"

                  Well, first of all, I get the impression that they did the extra work to make it not work. But the real reason would be that it adds a lot of value to the Linux kernel.

                  To answer some of the posters above - I used to be a btrfs "cultist", and by that I mean user. I like the idea of it and it has saved my ass at least once. It actually has some advantages over ZFS but is inferior in other respects. The major "selling" point for both is robustness. And Btrfs doesn't inspire confidence in me after the RAID 5/6 debacle. I still use it on some root filesystems though - in Ubuntu it snapshots the old installation before doing release upgrades so you can revert back if something goes wrong. Just don't forget to delete the old snapshot once you've convinced yourself that you're fine. But I digress.

                  In my opinion ZFS provides the best solution for people who value their data above everything else, like I do. Now, if you prioritize other aspects like flexibility, speed, etc, you might settle for some other filesystem. And that's fine. I won't call you a cultist. It's so immature.

                  Comment


                  • #19
                    Originally posted by LaeMing View Post

                    Umm... If they are volunteers, they can work on whatever they damn well like.
                    And if they are being paid, they have to work on what they are being paid for.

                    I'm with [email protected] and garegin on this one - if it is so important to ZFS users, where are their efforts?
                    (Whining that others aren't doing what you want without interest or recompense doesn't count as effort, shocking as it may seem!)
                    I think it as a case of upstream breaking the internal API's yet again, not caring in the least how it would affect downstream. Happens all the time. Shit breaks because upstream dev thinks it good to do some minor random change and like a "butterfly effect" bunch of stuff gets broken suddenly downstream. Does "Mr or Ms "upstream dev" cares? Not in the least.

                    Mr "2.nd in command after Linus" seems to be guided here by his own preconceptions rather than anything else - I checked follow-up mails and reached that conclusion. Biggest problem for him seems to be that ZFS originated from Solaris (NIH). Not that I actually particularly care, more power to FreeBSD.


                    What particular efforts you would like to see already? The problem has just been found..
                    Spread more demagogy? ZoL's been developed constantly AFAIK.
                    Last edited by aht0; 01-11-2019, 03:38 AM.

                    Comment


                    • #20
                      Originally posted by aht0 View Post
                      I think it as a case of upstream breaking the internal API's yet again, not caring in the least how it would affect downstream. Happens all the time. Shit breaks because upstream dev thinks it good to do some minor random change and like a "butterfly effect" bunch of stuff gets broken suddenly downstream.
                      https://yarchive.net/comp/linux/kernel_fp.html
                      This is when __kernel_fpu_begin and __kernel_fpu_end features were introduced into the Linux kernel. Do notice that Linus was very clear you should only use fpu in special conditions and not all arch Linux supports will support floating point in driver code. So you driver code should contain a fall back if the functions don't exist.

                      So the fact ZFS breaks when __kernel_fpu_begin and __kernel_fpu_end are removed this is their fault because those functions were always meant to be special case and ZFS for Linux developers should have coded around them.

                      To make this even worse __kernel_fpu_begin and __kernel_fpu_end have been deprecated for over a decade. The replacement to .__kernel_fpu_begin and __kernel_fpu_end is https://www.ibm.com/developerworks/l...pps/index.html usermode mode helper. Yes run you float point stuff in userspace so that if the fpu stuff up and damages memory you don't have a kernel panic. Yes this is a feature 2.6.27 Linux kernel released 9 October 2008 and that is also when .__kernel_fpu_begin and __kernel_fpu_end both come deprecated.

                      __kernel_fpu_begin and __kernel_fpu_end don't exist in the Linux kernel before 2003 when added were marked as highly questionable. Deprecated 5 years later. 10 years later Linux kernel removes them. Some how aht0 is attempting to make out Linux mainline is at fault.

                      The reality here like it or not the ZFS On Linux are at fault. ZFS On Linux started Feb 27, 2008. Maybe if they had started 1 year later they might have avoided this disaster or maybe they still would have used deprecated API and failed to build in fall back code.

                      aht0 I really do think at a decade is more than enough notice that an API is going to be removed particularly and API that from the start was marked do not expect to be functional or exist as this case is from the start.

                      Yes there are times Linux mainline developers do deserve to be yelled at for removing stuff without clear notice this is not one them. When you had a decade of notice to correct you code and you have not really there is no point complaining when it no longer works. ZFS on Linux developer just need to fix the code as they should have a decade ago.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X