From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262655AbTLBSDA (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Dec 2003 13:03:00 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262603AbTLBSDA (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Dec 2003 13:03:00 -0500 Received: from tolkor.sgi.com ([198.149.18.6]:10464 "EHLO tolkor.sgi.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262566AbTLBSC5 (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Dec 2003 13:02:57 -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: <1070388083.3060.19.camel@naboo.americas.sgi.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.5-1mdk Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2003 12:01:23 -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 09:50, 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. True... so are you basing your decision to not include it on some thing technical or just your personal feeling? which in your words "shouldn't matter" > > The bigger point is that XFS touches generic code and I'm not sure if that > can break something. We have taken great pain to make sure the generic code changes do not logically change any code paths. Everything is either new code paths only used by XFS or very careful conditionals on flags only set by XFS. Some of the changes that were made to generic code was done because it was the right way to it. It would certainly would be possible pull many of the needed changes back into fs/xfs but then there would be duplicated code that could potentially be wrong if somebody changes the generic routines. (core locking differences in different kernels have bitten us in the past, RedHat kernel are good at this) If you really have issues with any of the core changes please make some suggestions it's possible things could be done differently. > > Why it matters so much for you to have XFS in 2.4 ? Well if you follow that logic then why did any of the other filesystems go in? in fact why would any new subsystems go in? Everybody maintaining a large pile of patches should be sufficient to call something linux? Take anybody list of reasons for inclusion into core. Acceptance Larger audience, possible exposure in other projects that won't look at XFS due the extra work of merging their patches with ours Ease the support work needed to integrate with all the different distro More feed back for interfaces