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

  • #71
    Originally posted by pdffs View Post
    It's a shame that BTRFS turned out to be be such a steaming pile of crap, ZFS is the only filesystem of its kind worth using right now.
    it's a shame idiots have nothing to do but post bullshit

    Comment


    • #72
      Originally posted by k1e0x View Post
      Linux kernel dev's don't want it.. I'm sure FreeBSD will have no problem stealing Linux's market share with it.
      lol. how much did they steal during last decade?

      Comment


      • #73
        Originally posted by some_canuck View Post
        If going CDDL was hard enough for Sun back in the early 00's, you can imagine how much harder it will be in 2019 to go GPL.
        that's self-inflicted pain, nobody cares

        Comment


        • #74
          Originally posted by Zan Lynx View Post
          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.
          correlation between nvidiots and zfs zealots

          Comment


          • #75
            Originally posted by garegin View Post
            Just shows how weak the corporate support for Linux is.
            yep, ibm buying redhat for 34b is weak corporate support. or maybe it's just weak commenter's brain
            Originally posted by garegin View Post
            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.
            there is plenty of "finished" filesystems for linux. (i'm pretty sure you have no clue what that means but whatever)
            on the other hand there is bunch of crying idiots fallen to propaganda of obsolete by design zfs
            btw, why useless zfs imbeciles didn't finish upstreaming their filesystem?

            Comment


            • #76
              Originally posted by GrayShade View Post
              kernel_fpu_begin and kernel_fpu_end were switched to GPL exports in this commit from 2015.
              Look closer do note the preempt_disable() and preempt_enable() added to the GPL exported versions. This is to make those functions safe. The __ versions are unsafe.

              2015 look at the Linux kernel mailing list where is a ZoL developer saying hey I need this GPL exported function as normal exported? There is not one.

              Swaped to GPL exported symbols are from exported with a name starting with __ is in fact more permissive. GPL means this is for modules that are out of tree that are planning to merge ie GPL compatible license modules. __ at the start of name was prototype only not for out of tree modules at all. Using a __ starting function in Linux is the same as using a totally undocumented function with windows.

              If you read the 2003 description __kernel_fpu_begin and __kernel_fpu_end are not for out of tree kernel modules at all. Yet ZoL is using these. This is path to trouble. Yes in 2003 developer ask about third party modules and is told no by Linus. Every time Linus is asked that question about __kernel_fpu_begin and __kernel_fpu_end the answer stays the same.

              2 to 3 years is quite common migration allowance by the Linux kernel for kernel API. Something else to be clearly aware of with Linux kernel two exports in kernel space module API doing the same thing one is normally always deprecated this is the oldest one. If ZoL were watching the functions they were using they could have raise the issue to get this address with tones of time to spare.

              There are api rules with the Linux kernel. Do remember the request to remove __kernel_fpu_begin and __kernel_fpu_end goes though because all the internal usage are gone and due to starting with __ they don't have to ask third party modules if they are using it.

              Its one thing to be using a GPL exported symbol with the Linux kernel. Its a far deeper in the pits of hell to be using functions starting with __.

              Comment


              • #77
                Originally posted by kobblestown View Post
                Well, first of all, I get the impression that they did the extra work to make it not work.
                i get the impression that you are butthurt conspiracy theorist
                Originally posted by kobblestown View Post
                In my opinion ZFS provides the best solution for people who value their data above everything else, like I do.
                in my opinion only idiot would trust their data to be stored in some unsupported crap downloaded from internets

                Comment


                • #78
                  Originally posted by aht0 View Post
                  I think it as a case of upstream breaking the internal API's yet again
                  it is a case of typical butthurt idiot commenting. internal apis are internal exactly because they are designed to be broken on every release.
                  Originally posted by aht0 View Post
                  , not caring in the least how it would affect downstream.
                  you are confusing downstream with freeloaders
                  Originally posted by aht0 View Post
                  Not that I actually particularly care, more power to FreeBSD.
                  to freebsd which spends all power on maintaining forks of linux drivers, so that no power left for maintaining their fork of zfs, so that they are switching to maintaining fork of linux zfs driver again? well, next obvious step for powerful freebsd is to switch to btrfs
                  Originally posted by aht0 View Post
                  What particular efforts you would like to see already?
                  upstream your piece of shit properly. including rewriting under proper license
                  Originally posted by aht0 View Post
                  The problem has just been found..
                  that's your problem. feel free to apply ice to your butt
                  Originally posted by aht0 View Post
                  ZoL's been developed constantly AFAIK.
                  s/developed/broken/
                  Last edited by pal666; 01-12-2019, 08:53 AM.

                  Comment


                  • #79
                    Originally posted by ferry View Post
                    Even if ZFS code would be suddenly re-licensed, more is needed to get it upstream.
                    that's for sure. it has to be rewritten into proper linux filesystem from "solaris filesystem with buggy solaris-to-linux compatibility layer". it will surely mean more changes than amd dc refactoring for example. imo it has no way to compete with btrfs, which is additionally not obsolete by design
                    Last edited by pal666; 01-12-2019, 06:04 AM.

                    Comment


                    • #80
                      Originally posted by GruenSein View Post
                      This issue is so representative of the weird attitude that seems to cloud the Linux development community.
                      if resulting os is the best, then attitude is the best, not "weird"
                      Originally posted by GruenSein View Post
                      It is because many people have wanted to use ZFS for a long time
                      many people are not very smart, there is no reason to hinder linux because there are some idiots on the planet.
                      Originally posted by GruenSein View Post
                      and it is one of the most advanced FSs for its purpose.
                      second only to btrfs. which, you know, already supported by linux
                      Originally posted by GruenSein View Post
                      They can choose to support a piece of software which would significantly extend the kernels capabilities.
                      that piece of software is btrfs and it is already supported
                      Originally posted by GruenSein View Post
                      Also, I don't get why they don't simply restore the symbols that ZOL uses and mark them "deprecated" or whatever until the software depending on it can adapt (assuming there is an actual reason to remove them at all).
                      that is obvious. you don't get trivial things because you are zfs zealot and that requires certain level of idiocy. those symbols were deprecated ten years ago

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X