From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262181AbTLBPjU (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Dec 2003 10:39:20 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262195AbTLBPjU (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Dec 2003 10:39:20 -0500 Received: from lips.borg.umn.edu ([160.94.232.50]:34801 "EHLO lips.borg.umn.edu") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262181AbTLBPjU (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Dec 2003 10:39:20 -0500 Subject: Re: XFS for 2.4 From: Russell Cattelan To: Marcelo Tosatti Cc: Nathan Scott , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-xfs@oss.sgi.com, Andrew Morton In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1070379282.82397.29.camel@lupo.thebarn.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.5 Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2003 09:34:43 -0600 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 2003-12-02 at 05:18, Marcelo Tosatti wrote: [snip] > Also I'm not completly sure if the generic changes are fine and I dont > like the XFS code in general. Ahh so the real truth comes out. Is there a reason for your sudden dislike of the XFS code? or is this just an arbitrary general dislike for unknown or unstated reasons? -- Russell Cattelan