Re: xfs: does mkfs.xfs require fancy switches to get decent performance? (was Tux3 Report: How fast can we fsync?)

[Martin Steigerwald <martin@lichtvoll.de>]

Am Mittwoch, 13. Mai 2015, 13:38:24 schrieb Daniel Phillips:
> On Wednesday, May 13, 2015 1:25:38 PM PDT, Martin Steigerwald wrote:
> > Am Mittwoch, 13. Mai 2015, 12:37:41 schrieb Daniel Phillips:
> >> On 05/13/2015 12:09 PM, Martin Steigerwald wrote: ...
> > 
> > Daniel, if you want to change the process of patch review and
> > inclusion into
> > the kernel, model an example of how you would like it to be. This has
> > way
> > better chances to inspire others to change their behaviors themselves
> > than accusing them of bad faith.
> > 
> > Its yours to choose.
> > 
> > What outcome do you want to create?
> 
> The outcome I would like is:
> 
>   * Everybody has a good think about what has gone wrong in the past,
>     not only with troublesome submitters, but with mutual respect and
>     collegial conduct.
> 
>   * Tux3 is merged on its merits so we get more developers and
>     testers and move it along faster.
> 
>   * I left LKML better than I found it.
> 
>   * Group hugs
> 
> Well, group hugs are optional, that one would be situational.

Great stuff!

Looking forward to it.

Thank you,
-- 
Martin 'Helios' Steigerwald - http://www.Lichtvoll.de
GPG: 03B0 0D6C 0040 0710 4AFA  B82F 991B EAAC A599 84C7