44
Bcachefs Outlines Plans For Shipping As A DKMS Out-Of-Tree Kernel Module - Phoronix (www.phoronix.com)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/linux@programming.dev
12 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] -3 points 1 year ago (8 children)

It's not fine. The code was rejected many times for being problematic, which is why the overall project ended up getting rejected from the kernel.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 17 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    It was rejected for putting in features in bugfix only windows. It was always about how he reacted to issues like that which got him moved to "externally maintained" If you have examples of commits being rejected on their actual coding merits, please link.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [+] -6 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    No. His code, testing methods, and submitting code that broke both testing and basic construct was the issue.

    You can dance all day around the issue, but a developer who can't get a fairly simple bit of code in good enough order to submit for upstream, THEN can't even test to make sure it doesn't break AT, THEN N is also behind deadline, THENNNNN is also a huge dick about it...not a good developer.

    All he had to do was not completely shit the bed, and he did it repeatedly. THOUSANDS of other developers interact with that same list and upstream code on a weekly basis. This guy's code and methods is shit, and deserved to have his code kicked out. He's a terrible developer, and I wouldn't trust his code to wipe with.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Again, please post proof of what you're saying here. All I've seen from this issue had been his problematic attitude, not his code quality.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -3 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Oh, okay, lazy guy. This is the pedants way of stomping their feet because they refuse to read the obvious that is already out there, you know. Go ahead and be a lil baby because your point is wrong.

    Despite this, it has become clear that BcacheFS is rather unstable, with frequent and extensive patches being submitted to the point where [Linus Torvalds] in August of last year pushed back against it, as well as expressing regret for merging BcacheFS into mainline Linux. As covered in the video, [Kent] has pushed users reporting issues to upgrade to the latest Linux kernel to get critical fixes, which really reinforces the notion that BcacheFS is at best an experimental Alpha-level filesystem implementation and should probably not be used with important data or systems.

    https://hackaday.com/2025/06/10/the-ongoing-bcachefs-filesystem-stability-controversy/

    Literally describes the same behavior here from a different time period: https://www.theregister.com/2025/07/01/bcachefs_may_get_dropped/

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    Bcachefs was not kicked out because its design and implementation is of bad quality. A bad quality software is something that is: full of bugs; every 4 fixed bugs you introduce a new one; the design is so wrong that it is difficult to add new features; the code is difficult to understand.

    If you consider various metrics like irrecoverable loss of data, lines of code, features, Bcachefs is a very good project. It is under development, so the source code is not "stable" and there are frequent updates, but the behavior of the file system is fully under control and it is only improving,

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago

    Bcachefs seems a really well designed filesystem, because it takes in consideration the lessons learned from other filesystems and its code base is compact and elegant.

    It is also very robust because corrupted metadata can be reconstructed scanning the leaf nodes with data. So there are very few weak points in case of disasters. Infact every time there were a report of corrupted data, the bcachefs team was able to fix the code and retrieve the data of the affected users.

    I used it for a while, and I were impressed. For example it automatically upgrade its data structures.

    It is true that there were a commit of bcachefs that broken the kernel build, because in conflicts with others commits. But this can happen: it is not strictly related to the quality of code of bcachefs, but more to the interaction with other developers, that up to date it is the weak point of the project.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent