From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262319AbTLBQLc (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Dec 2003 11:11:32 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262323AbTLBQLc (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Dec 2003 11:11:32 -0500 Received: from wsi-204-189.wsi.com ([4.36.204.189]:41344 "EHLO nuttfield.wsicorp.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262319AbTLBQLQ (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Dec 2003 11:11:16 -0500 Subject: Re: XFS for 2.4 From: Darrell Michaud To: Marcelo Tosatti Cc: Russell Cattelan , Nathan Scott , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-xfs@oss.sgi.com, Andrew Morton In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain Organization: Message-Id: <1070381443.5316.260.camel@atherne> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.2.2 (1.2.2-4) Date: 02 Dec 2003 11:10:43 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org As a user it would be very beneficial for me to have XFS support in the official 2.4 kernel tree. XFS been stable and "2.4 integration-ready" for a long time, and 2.4 is going to be used in certain environments for a long time, if only because it's easier to upgrade a 2.4 kernel to a newer 2.4 kernel than to upgrade to a 2.6 kernel. It seems like an easy case to make. I use other filesystems and some funky drivers as well.. and I'm always very happy to see useful backports show up in the 2.4 tree. Thank you! On Tue, 2003-12-02 at 10:50, Marcelo Tosatti wrote: > On Tue, 2 Dec 2003, Russell Cattelan wrote: > > > 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? > > I always disliked the XFS code. > > > or is this just an arbitrary general dislike for unknown or unstated > > reasons? > > I dont like the style of the code. Thats a personal issue, though, and > shouldnt matter. > > The bigger point is that XFS touches generic code and I'm not sure if that > can break something. > > Why it matters so much for you to have XFS in 2.4 ? > -- Darrell Michaud