linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* XFS for 2.4
@ 2003-12-01  6:20 Nathan Scott
  2003-12-01  9:24 ` Jens Axboe
                   ` (2 more replies)
  0 siblings, 3 replies; 79+ messages in thread
From: Nathan Scott @ 2003-12-01  6:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Marcelo Tosatti; +Cc: linux-kernel, linux-xfs

Hi Marcelo,

Please do a

	bk pull http://xfs.org:8090/linux-2.4+coreXFS

This will merge the core 2.4 kernel changes required for supporting
the XFS filesystem, as listed below.  If this all looks acceptable,
then please also pull the filesystem-specific code (fs/xfs/*)

	bk pull http://xfs.org:8090/linux-2.4+justXFS

cheers.

-- 
Nathan


linux-2.4+coreXFS updates the following files:

 Documentation/Changes              |   16 ++
 Documentation/Configure.help       |   84 +++++++++++++
 Documentation/filesystems/00-INDEX |    2 
 Documentation/filesystems/xfs.txt  |  226 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
 MAINTAINERS                        |    8 +
 drivers/block/ll_rw_blk.c          |    3 
 fs/Config.in                       |    7 +
 fs/Makefile                        |    4 
 fs/buffer.c                        |   59 ++++++++-
 fs/inode.c                         |   46 +++----
 fs/namei.c                         |   13 +-
 fs/open.c                          |   13 ++
 include/linux/dqblk_xfs.h          |    9 -
 include/linux/fs.h                 |   50 +++++++-
 include/linux/posix_acl_xattr.h    |   67 ++++++++++
 include/linux/sched.h              |    1 
 kernel/ksyms.c                     |   12 +
 mm/filemap.c                       |   63 +++++++++-
 18 files changed, 618 insertions(+), 65 deletions(-)

through these ChangeSets:

<nathans@bruce.melbourne.sgi.com> (03/11/24 1.1183.1.1)
   VFS support for filesystems which implement POSIX ACLs.
   
   This involves an inode flag which directs the VFS to skip application
   of the umask so that the filesystem ACL code can do this according to
   the POSIX rules, and a new header file defining the contents of the 2
   system ACL extended attributes.  This is a backport from 2.6.

<nathans@bruce.melbourne.sgi.com> (03/11/25 1.1194)
   Fix utimes(2) and immutable/append-only files.

<nathans@bruce.melbourne.sgi.com> (03/11/25 1.1195)
   Remove some unused macros and related comment from the XFS quota header.

<nathans@bruce.melbourne.sgi.com> (03/11/25 1.1196)
   Add a process flag to identify a process performing a transaction.
   Used by XFS and backported from 2.6.

<nathans@bruce.melbourne.sgi.com> (03/11/25 1.1197)
   Support for delayed allocation.  Used by XFS and backported from 2.6.

<nathans@bruce.melbourne.sgi.com> (03/11/25 1.1198)
   Provide a simple try-lock based dirty page flushing routine.

<nathans@bruce.melbourne.sgi.com> (03/11/25 1.1199)
   Provide an iget variant without unlocking the inode and without the
   read_inode call (iget_locked).  Used by XFS and backported from 2.6.

<nathans@bruce.melbourne.sgi.com> (03/11/26 1.1200)
   Export several kernel symbols used by the XFS filesystem.

<nathans@bruce.melbourne.sgi.com> (03/11/26 1.1201)
   Add XFS documentation and incorporate XFS into the kernel build.

<nathans@bruce.melbourne.sgi.com> (03/12/01 1.1202.1.1)
   [XFS] Document the XFS noikeep option, make ikeep the default.


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 79+ messages in thread

* Re: XFS for 2.4
  2003-12-01  6:20 XFS for 2.4 Nathan Scott
@ 2003-12-01  9:24 ` Jens Axboe
  2003-12-01  9:44   ` Stefan Smietanowski
  2003-12-01 14:06 ` Marcelo Tosatti
  2003-12-01 21:00 ` XFS for 2.4 Dan Yocum
  2 siblings, 1 reply; 79+ messages in thread
From: Jens Axboe @ 2003-12-01  9:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Nathan Scott; +Cc: Marcelo Tosatti, linux-kernel, linux-xfs

On Mon, Dec 01 2003, Nathan Scott wrote:
> Hi Marcelo,
> 
> Please do a
> 
> 	bk pull http://xfs.org:8090/linux-2.4+coreXFS
> 
> This will merge the core 2.4 kernel changes required for supporting
> the XFS filesystem, as listed below.  If this all looks acceptable,
> then please also pull the filesystem-specific code (fs/xfs/*)
> 
> 	bk pull http://xfs.org:8090/linux-2.4+justXFS

Where can these be found as a unified diff? It's quite bothersome to
have to pull a changeset just to review it (cloning a kernel tree
first), not to mention space intensive.

-- 
Jens Axboe


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 79+ messages in thread

* Re: XFS for 2.4
  2003-12-01  9:24 ` Jens Axboe
@ 2003-12-01  9:44   ` Stefan Smietanowski
  2003-12-01  9:45     ` Jens Axboe
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 79+ messages in thread
From: Stefan Smietanowski @ 2003-12-01  9:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Jens Axboe; +Cc: Nathan Scott, Marcelo Tosatti, linux-kernel, linux-xfs

Jens Axboe wrote:

> On Mon, Dec 01 2003, Nathan Scott wrote:
> 
>>Hi Marcelo,
>>
>>Please do a
>>
>>	bk pull http://xfs.org:8090/linux-2.4+coreXFS
>>
>>This will merge the core 2.4 kernel changes required for supporting
>>the XFS filesystem, as listed below.  If this all looks acceptable,
>>then please also pull the filesystem-specific code (fs/xfs/*)
>>
>>	bk pull http://xfs.org:8090/linux-2.4+justXFS
> 
> 
> Where can these be found as a unified diff? It's quite bothersome to
> have to pull a changeset just to review it (cloning a kernel tree
> first), not to mention space intensive.
> 

There was a mail announcing split-patches for 2.4.23 five hours before
this mail. The mail was from Keith Owens but here's the link from it:

ftp://oss.sgi.com/projects/xfs/patches/2.4.23 for the 2.4.23 patches.

// Stefan


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 79+ messages in thread

* Re: XFS for 2.4
  2003-12-01  9:44   ` Stefan Smietanowski
@ 2003-12-01  9:45     ` Jens Axboe
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 79+ messages in thread
From: Jens Axboe @ 2003-12-01  9:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Stefan Smietanowski
  Cc: Nathan Scott, Marcelo Tosatti, linux-kernel, linux-xfs

On Mon, Dec 01 2003, Stefan Smietanowski wrote:
> Jens Axboe wrote:
> 
> >On Mon, Dec 01 2003, Nathan Scott wrote:
> >
> >>Hi Marcelo,
> >>
> >>Please do a
> >>
> >>	bk pull http://xfs.org:8090/linux-2.4+coreXFS
> >>
> >>This will merge the core 2.4 kernel changes required for supporting
> >>the XFS filesystem, as listed below.  If this all looks acceptable,
> >>then please also pull the filesystem-specific code (fs/xfs/*)
> >>
> >>	bk pull http://xfs.org:8090/linux-2.4+justXFS
> >
> >
> >Where can these be found as a unified diff? It's quite bothersome to
> >have to pull a changeset just to review it (cloning a kernel tree
> >first), not to mention space intensive.
> >
> 
> There was a mail announcing split-patches for 2.4.23 five hours before
> this mail. The mail was from Keith Owens but here's the link from it:
> 
> ftp://oss.sgi.com/projects/xfs/patches/2.4.23 for the 2.4.23 patches.

Great, thanks.

-- 
Jens Axboe


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 79+ messages in thread

* Re: XFS for 2.4
  2003-12-01  6:20 XFS for 2.4 Nathan Scott
  2003-12-01  9:24 ` Jens Axboe
@ 2003-12-01 14:06 ` Marcelo Tosatti
  2003-12-01 22:10   ` Nathan Scott
                     ` (2 more replies)
  2003-12-01 21:00 ` XFS for 2.4 Dan Yocum
  2 siblings, 3 replies; 79+ messages in thread
From: Marcelo Tosatti @ 2003-12-01 14:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Nathan Scott; +Cc: Marcelo Tosatti, linux-kernel



On Mon, 1 Dec 2003, Nathan Scott wrote:

> Hi Marcelo,
> 
> Please do a
> 
> 	bk pull http://xfs.org:8090/linux-2.4+coreXFS
> 
> This will merge the core 2.4 kernel changes required for supporting
> the XFS filesystem, as listed below.  If this all looks acceptable,
> then please also pull the filesystem-specific code (fs/xfs/*)
> 
> 	bk pull http://xfs.org:8090/linux-2.4+justXFS

Nathan, 

I think XFS should be a 2.6 only feature.

2.6 is already stable enough for people to use it. 



^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 79+ messages in thread

* Re: XFS for 2.4
  2003-12-01  6:20 XFS for 2.4 Nathan Scott
  2003-12-01  9:24 ` Jens Axboe
  2003-12-01 14:06 ` Marcelo Tosatti
@ 2003-12-01 21:00 ` Dan Yocum
  2003-12-01 21:50   ` Bryan Whitehead
  2003-12-02 11:02   ` Maciej Soltysiak
  2 siblings, 2 replies; 79+ messages in thread
From: Dan Yocum @ 2003-12-01 21:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Nathan Scott; +Cc: Marcelo Tosatti, linux-kernel, linux-xfs

Marcelo,

We (Fermilab) second this request.  We won't be touching 2.6 until it's 
really stable (read as, Red Hat comes out with an official distro that has 
it built in), and we already have *a lot* of XFS filesystems here (~>300TB) 
running on 2.4 kernels.  It would be very, very nice to have it in the 2.4 
tree without having to pull it from SGI.

Thanks,
Dan


Nathan Scott wrote:
> Hi Marcelo,
> 
> Please do a
> 
> 	bk pull http://xfs.org:8090/linux-2.4+coreXFS
> 
> This will merge the core 2.4 kernel changes required for supporting
> the XFS filesystem, as listed below.  If this all looks acceptable,
> then please also pull the filesystem-specific code (fs/xfs/*)
> 
> 	bk pull http://xfs.org:8090/linux-2.4+justXFS
> 
> cheers.
> 

-- 
Dan Yocum
Sloan Digital Sky Survey, Fermilab  630.840.6509
yocum@fnal.gov, http://www.sdss.org
SDSS.  Mapping the Universe.  You are here.


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 79+ messages in thread

* Re: XFS for 2.4
  2003-12-01 21:00 ` XFS for 2.4 Dan Yocum
@ 2003-12-01 21:50   ` Bryan Whitehead
  2003-12-01 22:01     ` Jeffrey E. Hundstad
                       ` (2 more replies)
  2003-12-02 11:02   ` Maciej Soltysiak
  1 sibling, 3 replies; 79+ messages in thread
From: Bryan Whitehead @ 2003-12-01 21:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Dan Yocum; +Cc: Nathan Scott, Marcelo Tosatti, linux-kernel, linux-xfs

I'd like to "third" this request. Have a large amount of data here on 
XFS with v2.4 kernel.

Would be nice to be able to use pre-release 2.4 for testing without 
having to manually hack in XFS paches from SGI for the odd reject...

Dan Yocum wrote:
> Marcelo,
> 
> We (Fermilab) second this request.  We won't be touching 2.6 until it's 
> really stable (read as, Red Hat comes out with an official distro that 
> has it built in), and we already have *a lot* of XFS filesystems here 
> (~>300TB) running on 2.4 kernels.  It would be very, very nice to have 
> it in the 2.4 tree without having to pull it from SGI.
> 
> Thanks,
> Dan
> 
> 
> Nathan Scott wrote:
> 
>> Hi Marcelo,
>>
>> Please do a
>>
>>     bk pull http://xfs.org:8090/linux-2.4+coreXFS
>>
>> This will merge the core 2.4 kernel changes required for supporting
>> the XFS filesystem, as listed below.  If this all looks acceptable,
>> then please also pull the filesystem-specific code (fs/xfs/*)
>>
>>     bk pull http://xfs.org:8090/linux-2.4+justXFS
>>
>> cheers.
>>
> 


-- 
Bryan Whitehead
SysAdmin - JPL - Interferometry and Large Optical Systems
Phone: 818 354 2903
driver@jpl.nasa.gov


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 79+ messages in thread

* Re: XFS for 2.4
  2003-12-01 21:50   ` Bryan Whitehead
@ 2003-12-01 22:01     ` Jeffrey E. Hundstad
  2003-12-01 22:13     ` Gerardo Exequiel Pozzi
  2003-12-02  2:54     ` Joshua Schmidlkofer
  2 siblings, 0 replies; 79+ messages in thread
From: Jeffrey E. Hundstad @ 2003-12-01 22:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Bryan Whitehead
  Cc: Dan Yocum, Nathan Scott, Marcelo Tosatti, linux-kernel, linux-xfs

I'd like to add my vote also.  I've been using XFS for years.  The XFS 
patches work well.  But having them in the standard kernel would be very 
nice.

-- 
jeffrey hundstad

Bryan Whitehead wrote:

> I'd like to "third" this request. Have a large amount of data here on 
> XFS with v2.4 kernel.
>
> Would be nice to be able to use pre-release 2.4 for testing without 
> having to manually hack in XFS paches from SGI for the odd reject...
>
> Dan Yocum wrote:
>
>> Marcelo,
>>
>> We (Fermilab) second this request.  We won't be touching 2.6 until 
>> it's really stable (read as, Red Hat comes out with an official 
>> distro that has it built in), and we already have *a lot* of XFS 
>> filesystems here (~>300TB) running on 2.4 kernels.  It would be very, 
>> very nice to have it in the 2.4 tree without having to pull it from SGI.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Dan
>>
>>
>> Nathan Scott wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Marcelo,
>>>
>>> Please do a
>>>
>>>     bk pull http://xfs.org:8090/linux-2.4+coreXFS
>>>
>>> This will merge the core 2.4 kernel changes required for supporting
>>> the XFS filesystem, as listed below.  If this all looks acceptable,
>>> then please also pull the filesystem-specific code (fs/xfs/*)
>>>
>>>     bk pull http://xfs.org:8090/linux-2.4+justXFS
>>>
>>> cheers.
>>>
>>
>
>


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 79+ messages in thread

* Re: XFS for 2.4
  2003-12-01 14:06 ` Marcelo Tosatti
@ 2003-12-01 22:10   ` Nathan Scott
  2003-12-01 22:20     ` Larry McVoy
  2003-12-02 11:18     ` Marcelo Tosatti
  2003-12-02  0:51   ` Clemens Schwaighofer
  2003-12-14  1:08   ` 2.4 vs 2.6 Jan Rychter
  2 siblings, 2 replies; 79+ messages in thread
From: Nathan Scott @ 2003-12-01 22:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Marcelo Tosatti; +Cc: linux-kernel, linux-xfs

On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 12:06:14PM -0200, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Dec 2003, Nathan Scott wrote:
> 
> > Hi Marcelo,
> > 
> > Please do a
> > 
> > 	bk pull http://xfs.org:8090/linux-2.4+coreXFS
> > 
> > This will merge the core 2.4 kernel changes required for supporting
> > the XFS filesystem, as listed below.  If this all looks acceptable,
> > then please also pull the filesystem-specific code (fs/xfs/*)
> > 
> > 	bk pull http://xfs.org:8090/linux-2.4+justXFS
> 
> Nathan, 
> 
> I think XFS should be a 2.6 only feature.
> 
> 2.6 is already stable enough for people to use it. 
> 

Hi Marcelo,

Please reconsider -- the "core" kernel changes we need have existed
for three+ years outside of the mainline tree, and each is a small
and easily understood change that doesn't affect other filesystems.
There is also a VFS fix in there from Ethan Benson, as we discussed
during 2.4.23-pre, when you asked us to resend XFS for 2.4.24-pre!)
Everything there is a backport from 2.6 in some form, there should
be no surprises.

Not having XFS in 2.4 is extremely disadvantageous for us XFS folks
(especially since every other journaled filesystem has been merged
now).  To our users it means some rescue disks simply don't support
XFS, meaning you can't mount filesystems when you _really_ need to,
etc, etc.  Its also always extra work for distributors to merge XFS
themselves, and hence a few just don't (and occasionally tell us
that they are waiting for you to merge it) - which means some users
don't even get the option of using XFS, despite our best efforts.

>From discussions with distributors, a stable 2.6 distribution will
be many months after 2.6.0 is officially released, so these issues
are not going to go away anytime soon.

So, please merge XFS this time round - its actively developed, has
a large installed user base, and has been maintained outside of 2.4
for a long time.  We have waited patiently as each release goes by
for you to give us the nod, and have been knocked back on a number
of occasions while various other merges are being done.

cheers.

-- 
Nathan

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 79+ messages in thread

* Re: XFS for 2.4
  2003-12-01 21:50   ` Bryan Whitehead
  2003-12-01 22:01     ` Jeffrey E. Hundstad
@ 2003-12-01 22:13     ` Gerardo Exequiel Pozzi
  2003-12-02  2:54     ` Joshua Schmidlkofer
  2 siblings, 0 replies; 79+ messages in thread
From: Gerardo Exequiel Pozzi @ 2003-12-01 22:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Bryan Whitehead; +Cc: yocum, nathans, marcelo.tosatti, linux-kernel, linux-xfs

On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 13:50:08 -0800, Bryan Whitehead wrote:
>I'd like to "third" this request. Have a large amount of data here on 
>XFS with v2.4 kernel.
>
>Would be nice to be able to use pre-release 2.4 for testing without 
>having to manually hack in XFS paches from SGI for the odd reject...
>

Yes, exactly. 

Ok the XFS changes some vfs code, but works OK, and is in the -ac and -ck trees.

And another point is make the possiblility to add some patchs such as security
without hunks failed, and another funny hacks.

And the majority of distros include it.

Another vote.

chau,
 djgera


>Dan Yocum wrote:
>> Marcelo,
>> 
>> We (Fermilab) second this request.  We won't be touching 2.6 until it's 
>> really stable (read as, Red Hat comes out with an official distro that 
>> has it built in), and we already have *a lot* of XFS filesystems here 
>> (~>300TB) running on 2.4 kernels.  It would be very, very nice to have 
>> it in the 2.4 tree without having to pull it from SGI.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Dan
>> 
>> 
>> Nathan Scott wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi Marcelo,
>>>
>>> Please do a
>>>
>>>     bk pull http://xfs.org:8090/linux-2.4+coreXFS
>>>
>>> This will merge the core 2.4 kernel changes required for supporting
>>> the XFS filesystem, as listed below.  If this all looks acceptable,
>>> then please also pull the filesystem-specific code (fs/xfs/*)
>>>
>>>     bk pull http://xfs.org:8090/linux-2.4+justXFS
>>>
>>> cheers.
>>>
>> 
>
>
>-- 
>Bryan Whitehead
>SysAdmin - JPL - Interferometry and Large Optical Systems
>Phone: 818 354 2903
>driver@jpl.nasa.gov

-- 
Gerardo Exequiel Pozzi ( djgera )
http://www.vmlinuz.com.ar http://www.djgera.com.ar
KeyID: 0x1B8C330D
Key fingerprint = 0CAA D5D4 CD85 4434 A219  76ED 39AB 221B 1B8C 330D

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 79+ messages in thread

* Re: XFS for 2.4
  2003-12-01 22:10   ` Nathan Scott
@ 2003-12-01 22:20     ` Larry McVoy
  2003-12-02  0:23       ` Nathan Scott
  2003-12-02 11:18     ` Marcelo Tosatti
  1 sibling, 1 reply; 79+ messages in thread
From: Larry McVoy @ 2003-12-01 22:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Nathan Scott; +Cc: Marcelo Tosatti, linux-kernel, linux-xfs

On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 09:10:58AM +1100, Nathan Scott wrote:
> > Nathan, 
> > 
> > I think XFS should be a 2.6 only feature.
> > 
> > 2.6 is already stable enough for people to use it. 
> > 
> 
> Hi Marcelo,
> 
> Please reconsider 

I have no idea if XFS should or should not go in, I'm not commenting on that.

However, having a bunch of XFS users say "put it in" when the maintainer
said no, DaveM said no, and no other file system people seem to be
stepping up to the bat with a review and a nod seems wrong.  

Have you spoken with the people who maintain the generic parts of the
VFS layer that you want to change?  If those people were in the list of
people saying "XFS should go in" then I think you'd get a lot farther.

It's great that there are XFS users but the users should not make the add
it or not add it decision, the people who maintain those interfaces which
are generic should make that decision.  Don't you agree?
-- 
---
Larry McVoy              lm at bitmover.com          http://www.bitmover.com/lm

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 79+ messages in thread

* Re: XFS for 2.4
  2003-12-01 22:20     ` Larry McVoy
@ 2003-12-02  0:23       ` Nathan Scott
  2003-12-02 11:22         ` Marcelo Tosatti
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 79+ messages in thread
From: Nathan Scott @ 2003-12-02  0:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Larry McVoy, Marcelo Tosatti; +Cc: linux-kernel, linux-xfs

Hello Larry,

On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 02:20:25PM -0800, Larry McVoy wrote:
> 
> I have no idea if XFS should or should not go in, I'm not commenting on that.
> 
> However, having a bunch of XFS users say "put it in" when the maintainer
> said no, DaveM said no, and no other file system people seem to be
> stepping up to the bat with a review and a nod seems wrong.  

I must have missed that mail from Dave - or perhaps its still
in flight to me.  If you're refering to his "super-maintainence
mode" comment, I don't believe there was any specific comments
relating to XFS there (and XFS on 2.4 is in maintenance mode,
has been for a long time).

I also have mail from Marcelo saying he would look at merging XFS
in 2.4.24-pre (back when we last sent it, in 2.4.23-pre) ... so,
obviously I'm a little confused by this turn of events.

> Have you spoken with the people who maintain the generic parts of the
> VFS layer that you want to change?  If those people were in the list of
> people saying "XFS should go in" then I think you'd get a lot farther.

That level of discussion with other kernel coders, and extensive
review _has_ happened, in many cases _years_ ago now - this stuff
has all been merged in 2.5 for ages.  I wouldn't expect discussion
from other filesystem people at this stage - it is all old news to
them.

> ... the people who maintain those interfaces which
> are generic should make that decision.  Don't you agree?

Of course, and they have agreed that these are the way the changes
should be made - if you look at 2.6 you will see these changes all
merged there, a long time ago.  As I said, there is nothing new or
surprising here, and the changes are small and such that the other
filesystems are unaffected.

cheers.

-- 
Nathan

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 79+ messages in thread

* Re: XFS for 2.4
  2003-12-01 14:06 ` Marcelo Tosatti
  2003-12-01 22:10   ` Nathan Scott
@ 2003-12-02  0:51   ` Clemens Schwaighofer
  2003-12-02  1:26     ` Marcos D. Marado Torres
  2003-12-14  1:08   ` 2.4 vs 2.6 Jan Rychter
  2 siblings, 1 reply; 79+ messages in thread
From: Clemens Schwaighofer @ 2003-12-02  0:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Marcelo Tosatti; +Cc: Nathan Scott, linux-kernel

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Marcelo Tosatti wrote:

| Nathan,
|
| I think XFS should be a 2.6 only feature.
|
| 2.6 is already stable enough for people to use it.

It is not. It is still in development, and even if a 2.6.0 is
released I just think back to 2.4.0, just because it is called stable
doesn't make it stable.
I am sure it will need at least half a year for the major distros
(RedHat, Novell/SuSe, Mandrake) to pick it up. Perhaps some others more
earlier (Gentoo who knows), some never (Debian), but still, in the mean
time it is always a bit tricky with kernel updats here. Either I patch
it with the SGI and might have troubles with other patches, or I take
the -ac (which didn't work last time because of some driver problems
with the HP/Compaq Raid) or I take the -ck which is a Desktop patchset
and not a server patchset ...
Well in just my opinion XFS should go into 2.4 (and not only because ALL
other FS are in there already). 2.4 will be the main kernel for quite
some more time and always come up with the argument "but 2.6 is so
ready" doesn't help ...

- --
Clemens Schwaighofer - IT Engineer & System Administration
==========================================================
Tequila Japan, 6-17-2 Ginza Chuo-ku, Tokyo 104-8167, JAPAN
Tel: +81-(0)3-3545-7703            Fax: +81-(0)3-3545-7343
http://www.tequila.jp
==========================================================
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQE/y+IKjBz/yQjBxz8RAlmAAJ44ixaLQ0UWX+y3pfM3AGJplJ/VdwCfSHP8
ghIZWUtwQhg+ZHU/iN4obzI=
=KfM2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 79+ messages in thread

* Re: XFS for 2.4
  2003-12-02  0:51   ` Clemens Schwaighofer
@ 2003-12-02  1:26     ` Marcos D. Marado Torres
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 79+ messages in thread
From: Marcos D. Marado Torres @ 2003-12-02  1:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Clemens Schwaighofer; +Cc: linux-kernel

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Tue, 2 Dec 2003, Clemens Schwaighofer wrote:

[...]
> time it is always a bit tricky with kernel updats here. Either I patch
> it with the SGI and might have troubles with other patches, or I take
> the -ac (which didn't work last time because of some driver problems
> with the HP/Compaq Raid) or I take the -ck which is a Desktop patchset
> and not a server patchset ...
[...]

As a replacement to the -ac patches, you can allways use the -pac patches
(currently 2.4.23-pac1).

Greetings,
Mind Booster Noori

- --
==================================================
Marcos Daniel Marado Torres AKA Mind Booster Noori
/"\               http://student.dei.uc.pt/~marado
\ /                       marado@student.dei.uc.pt
 X   ASCII Ribbon Campaign
/ \  against HTML e-mail and Micro$oft attachments
==================================================

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Made with pgp4pine 1.76

iD8DBQE/y+pbmNlq8m+oD34RAg2hAJ48v2ZqMNxsHIcepJPttZo1Qk+kJgCfWh6c
jccDjXLdPDBUncc014Ce104=
=0+lU
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 79+ messages in thread

* Re: XFS for 2.4
  2003-12-01 21:50   ` Bryan Whitehead
  2003-12-01 22:01     ` Jeffrey E. Hundstad
  2003-12-01 22:13     ` Gerardo Exequiel Pozzi
@ 2003-12-02  2:54     ` Joshua Schmidlkofer
  2 siblings, 0 replies; 79+ messages in thread
From: Joshua Schmidlkofer @ 2003-12-02  2:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Bryan Whitehead; +Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List

On Mon, 2003-12-01 at 13:50, Bryan Whitehead wrote:
> I'd like to "third" this request. Have a large amount of data here on 
> XFS with v2.4 kernel.
> 
> Would be nice to be able to use pre-release 2.4 for testing without 
> having to manually hack in XFS paches from SGI for the odd reject...
> 
> Dan Yocum wrote:
> > Marcelo,
> > 
> > We (Fermilab) second this request.  We won't be touching 2.6 until it's 
> > really stable (read as, Red Hat comes out with an official distro that 
> > has it built in), and we already have *a lot* of XFS filesystems here 
> > (~>300TB) running on 2.4 kernels.  It would be very, very nice to have 
> > it in the 2.4 tree without having to pull it from SGI.
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > Dan

I would like to 'me too' - like some brain dead aoler.

I have 40+ machines which use XFS, and I have used it since the 1.0 was
released.  There are various servers, running a variety of services,
etc.  I think that the SGI team has done a fantastic job of supporting
2.4, and I have been using with no problems since 2.4.12.

I don't want to dis anyone either, but XFS is the filesystem that I use
because it is stable, and reliable, and IMHO mature.  I appreciate ext3,
Reiser, and especially JFS! However, XFS was ready first, and it was a
great disappointment not to see it in 2.4.  2.4 was truly a kernel of
pain in the beginning, and I repect the decision not to include it up
till now.  Not that it matters, but I will respect the decision of the
2.4 maintainers on this.  I do ask for 2.4, as a person who uses XFS on
all my personal, friends, mom's, and clients' systems.  Some of my
clients will not use it because it is not in the vanilla tree.  Please
reconsider on behalf of a wide body of users.

thanks,
  Joshua Schmidlkofer


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 79+ messages in thread

* Re: XFS for 2.4
  2003-12-01 21:00 ` XFS for 2.4 Dan Yocum
  2003-12-01 21:50   ` Bryan Whitehead
@ 2003-12-02 11:02   ` Maciej Soltysiak
  1 sibling, 0 replies; 79+ messages in thread
From: Maciej Soltysiak @ 2003-12-02 11:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: linux-kernel

> We (Fermilab) second this request.  We won't be touching 2.6 until it's
I, an ordinary user, also second it. I have been using XFS, but some day I
just
got tired of patching the kernel and backed up the data and switched to
other filesystem.

I really liked XFS.

Regards,
Maciej


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 79+ messages in thread

* Re: XFS for 2.4
  2003-12-01 22:10   ` Nathan Scott
  2003-12-01 22:20     ` Larry McVoy
@ 2003-12-02 11:18     ` Marcelo Tosatti
  2003-12-02 11:48       ` Marcelo Tosatti
  2003-12-02 15:34       ` Russell Cattelan
  1 sibling, 2 replies; 79+ messages in thread
From: Marcelo Tosatti @ 2003-12-02 11:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Nathan Scott; +Cc: Marcelo Tosatti, linux-kernel, linux-xfs, Andrew Morton



On Tue, 2 Dec 2003, Nathan Scott wrote:

> On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 12:06:14PM -0200, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> > On Mon, 1 Dec 2003, Nathan Scott wrote:
> > 
> > > Hi Marcelo,
> > > 
> > > Please do a
> > > 
> > > 	bk pull http://xfs.org:8090/linux-2.4+coreXFS
> > > 
> > > This will merge the core 2.4 kernel changes required for supporting
> > > the XFS filesystem, as listed below.  If this all looks acceptable,
> > > then please also pull the filesystem-specific code (fs/xfs/*)
> > > 
> > > 	bk pull http://xfs.org:8090/linux-2.4+justXFS
> > 
> > Nathan, 
> > 
> > I think XFS should be a 2.6 only feature.
> > 
> > 2.6 is already stable enough for people to use it. 
> > 
> 
> Hi Marcelo,
> 
> Please reconsider -- the "core" kernel changes we need have existed
> for three+ years outside of the mainline tree, and each is a small
> and easily understood change that doesn't affect other filesystems.
> There is also a VFS fix in there from Ethan Benson, as we discussed
> during 2.4.23-pre, when you asked us to resend XFS for 2.4.24-pre!)
> Everything there is a backport from 2.6 in some form, there should
> be no surprises.

Nathan,

I remember I have said to you "resend me XFS for 2.4.24-pre". A changed my 
mind since then...

> Not having XFS in 2.4 is extremely disadvantageous for us XFS folks
> (especially since every other journaled filesystem has been merged
> now).  

JFS did not touch generic code as I remember.

> To our users it means some rescue disks simply don't support
> XFS, meaning you can't mount filesystems when you _really_ need to,
> etc, etc.  Its also always extra work for distributors to merge XFS
> themselves, and hence a few just don't (and occasionally tell us
> that they are waiting for you to merge it) - which means some users
> don't even get the option of using XFS, despite our best efforts.

Come one, it is not so hard to maintain a patch in a distros kernel.  

Distros maintain hundreds of patches (even I did maintain hundreds of
patches while maintaining Conectiva's RPM). One more patch is not that
hard.

> From discussions with distributors, a stable 2.6 distribution will
> be many months after 2.6.0 is officially released, so these issues
> are not going to go away anytime soon.

Fine, so people who want XFS go compile 2.6.0 by hand. I'm using test11 on
several boxes and its working very well.

And 2.6 is much nicer than 2.4 anyway.

> So, please merge XFS this time round - its actively developed, has
> a large installed user base, and has been maintained outside of 2.4
> for a long time.  We have waited patiently as each release goes by
> for you to give us the nod, and have been knocked back on a number
> of occasions while various other merges are being done.

Also I'm not completly sure if the generic changes are fine and I dont
like the XFS code in general.




^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 79+ messages in thread

* Re: XFS for 2.4
  2003-12-02  0:23       ` Nathan Scott
@ 2003-12-02 11:22         ` Marcelo Tosatti
  2003-12-02 18:05           ` Austin Gonyou
                             ` (2 more replies)
  0 siblings, 3 replies; 79+ messages in thread
From: Marcelo Tosatti @ 2003-12-02 11:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Nathan Scott; +Cc: Larry McVoy, Marcelo Tosatti, linux-kernel, linux-xfs



On Tue, 2 Dec 2003, Nathan Scott wrote:

> Hello Larry,
> 
> On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 02:20:25PM -0800, Larry McVoy wrote:
> > 
> > I have no idea if XFS should or should not go in, I'm not commenting on that.
> > 
> > However, having a bunch of XFS users say "put it in" when the maintainer
> > said no, DaveM said no, and no other file system people seem to be
> > stepping up to the bat with a review and a nod seems wrong.  
> 
> I must have missed that mail from Dave - or perhaps its still
> in flight to me.  If you're refering to his "super-maintainence
> mode" comment, I don't believe there was any specific comments
> relating to XFS there (and XFS on 2.4 is in maintenance mode,
> has been for a long time).
> 
> I also have mail from Marcelo saying he would look at merging XFS
> in 2.4.24-pre (back when we last sent it, in 2.4.23-pre) ... so,
> obviously I'm a little confused by this turn of events.

Nathan, 

Yes, I indeed told you "resent me for 2.4.24-pre". I have changed my mind. 

Sorry for the trouble that caused you.

> That level of discussion with other kernel coders, and extensive
> review _has_ happened, in many cases _years_ ago now - this stuff
> has all been merged in 2.5 for ages.  I wouldn't expect discussion
> from other filesystem people at this stage - it is all old news to
> them.
> 
> > ... the people who maintain those interfaces which
> > are generic should make that decision.  Don't you agree?
> 
> Of course, and they have agreed that these are the way the changes
> should be made - if you look at 2.6 you will see these changes all
> merged there, a long time ago.  As I said, there is nothing new or
> surprising here, and the changes are small and such that the other
> filesystems are unaffected.

A development tree is much different from a stable tree. You cant just
simply backport generic VFS changes just because everybody agreed with
them on the development tree.

My whole point is "2.6 is almost out of the door and its so much better".  
Its much faster, much cleaner. 



^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 79+ messages in thread

* Re: XFS for 2.4
  2003-12-02 11:18     ` Marcelo Tosatti
@ 2003-12-02 11:48       ` Marcelo Tosatti
  2003-12-02 15:34       ` Russell Cattelan
  1 sibling, 0 replies; 79+ messages in thread
From: Marcelo Tosatti @ 2003-12-02 11:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Marcelo Tosatti; +Cc: Nathan Scott, linux-kernel, linux-xfs, Andrew Morton



On Tue, 2 Dec 2003, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:

> 
> 
> On Tue, 2 Dec 2003, Nathan Scott wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 12:06:14PM -0200, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> > > On Mon, 1 Dec 2003, Nathan Scott wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Hi Marcelo,
> > > > 
> > > > Please do a
> > > > 
> > > > 	bk pull http://xfs.org:8090/linux-2.4+coreXFS
> > > > 
> > > > This will merge the core 2.4 kernel changes required for supporting
> > > > the XFS filesystem, as listed below.  If this all looks acceptable,
> > > > then please also pull the filesystem-specific code (fs/xfs/*)
> > > > 
> > > > 	bk pull http://xfs.org:8090/linux-2.4+justXFS
> > > 
> > > Nathan, 
> > > 
> > > I think XFS should be a 2.6 only feature.
> > > 
> > > 2.6 is already stable enough for people to use it. 
> > > 
> > 
> > Hi Marcelo,
> > 
> > Please reconsider -- the "core" kernel changes we need have existed
> > for three+ years outside of the mainline tree, and each is a small
> > and easily understood change that doesn't affect other filesystems.
> > There is also a VFS fix in there from Ethan Benson, as we discussed
> > during 2.4.23-pre, when you asked us to resend XFS for 2.4.24-pre!)
> > Everything there is a backport from 2.6 in some form, there should
> > be no surprises.
> 
> Nathan,
> 
> I remember I have said to you "resend me XFS for 2.4.24-pre". A changed my 
> mind since then...
> 
> > Not having XFS in 2.4 is extremely disadvantageous for us XFS folks
> > (especially since every other journaled filesystem has been merged
> > now).  
> 
> JFS did not touch generic code as I remember.
> 
> > To our users it means some rescue disks simply don't support
> > XFS, meaning you can't mount filesystems when you _really_ need to,
> > etc, etc.  Its also always extra work for distributors to merge XFS
> > themselves, and hence a few just don't (and occasionally tell us
> > that they are waiting for you to merge it) - which means some users
> > don't even get the option of using XFS, despite our best efforts.
> 
> Come one, it is not so hard to maintain a patch in a distros kernel.  

s/one/on/

Ugh



^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 79+ messages in thread

* Re: XFS for 2.4
  2003-12-02 11:18     ` Marcelo Tosatti
  2003-12-02 11:48       ` Marcelo Tosatti
@ 2003-12-02 15:34       ` Russell Cattelan
  2003-12-02 15:50         ` Marcelo Tosatti
  2003-12-02 16:13         ` Jeremy Jackson
  1 sibling, 2 replies; 79+ messages in thread
From: Russell Cattelan @ 2003-12-02 15:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Marcelo Tosatti; +Cc: Nathan Scott, linux-kernel, linux-xfs, Andrew Morton

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 <cattelan@thebarn.com>


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 79+ messages in thread

* Re: XFS for 2.4
  2003-12-02 15:34       ` Russell Cattelan
@ 2003-12-02 15:50         ` Marcelo Tosatti
  2003-12-02 16:10           ` Darrell Michaud
  2003-12-02 18:01           ` Russell Cattelan
  2003-12-02 16:13         ` Jeremy Jackson
  1 sibling, 2 replies; 79+ messages in thread
From: Marcelo Tosatti @ 2003-12-02 15:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Russell Cattelan
  Cc: Marcelo Tosatti, Nathan Scott, linux-kernel, linux-xfs, Andrew Morton



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 ? 



^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 79+ messages in thread

* Re: XFS for 2.4
  2003-12-02 15:50         ` Marcelo Tosatti
@ 2003-12-02 16:10           ` Darrell Michaud
  2003-12-02 16:21             ` Austin Gonyou
  2003-12-02 16:28             ` Jeff Garzik
  2003-12-02 18:01           ` Russell Cattelan
  1 sibling, 2 replies; 79+ messages in thread
From: Darrell Michaud @ 2003-12-02 16:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Marcelo Tosatti
  Cc: Russell Cattelan, Nathan Scott, linux-kernel, linux-xfs, Andrew Morton

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 <dmichaud@wsi.com>


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 79+ messages in thread

* Re: XFS for 2.4
  2003-12-02 15:34       ` Russell Cattelan
  2003-12-02 15:50         ` Marcelo Tosatti
@ 2003-12-02 16:13         ` Jeremy Jackson
  1 sibling, 0 replies; 79+ messages in thread
From: Jeremy Jackson @ 2003-12-02 16:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Russell Cattelan
  Cc: Marcelo Tosatti, Nathan Scott, linux-kernel, linux-xfs, Andrew Morton

I think the dislike is justified.  XFS is kind of like an alien parasite 
attached to Linux.  IRIX's IO system is different, it's taken a lot of 
changes.  I still think it is the best filesystem with a lot of unused 
potential though.  I hope it will eventually be well integrated - 
2.6/2.8.  It's only the generic code changes we need to worry about 
though, right?

Regards,

Jeremy Jackson

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?
> or is this just an arbitrary general dislike for unknown or
> unstated reasons?
> 
> 




^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 79+ messages in thread

* Re: XFS for 2.4
  2003-12-02 16:10           ` Darrell Michaud
@ 2003-12-02 16:21             ` Austin Gonyou
  2003-12-02 16:28             ` Jeff Garzik
  1 sibling, 0 replies; 79+ messages in thread
From: Austin Gonyou @ 2003-12-02 16:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Darrell Michaud
  Cc: Marcelo Tosatti, Russell Cattelan, Nathan Scott, linux-kernel,
	XFS List, Andrew Morton

I second this as well. I'm sure there are others. XFS is a good option
to have for official FS inclusion and I'm *very* happy it's in 2.6. If
it were in 2.4, that *may* make adoption of 2.6 for some, slow in coming
along. While that may be true, I see that most will eventually want to
take advantage of all 2.6 has to offer, but if XFS were in the official
tree, then that may be one less piece of guess work needed when
upgrading from 2.4 to 2.6 with regards to FS maintenance. (i.e. same
version of XFS in both trees == possible same reliability, etc)

On Tue, 2003-12-02 at 10:10, Darrell Michaud wrote:
> 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 <dmichaud@wsi.com>
-- 
Austin Gonyou <austin@coremetrics.com>
Coremetrics, Inc.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 79+ messages in thread

* Re: XFS for 2.4
  2003-12-02 16:10           ` Darrell Michaud
  2003-12-02 16:21             ` Austin Gonyou
@ 2003-12-02 16:28             ` Jeff Garzik
  2003-12-02 16:57               ` venom
  2003-12-02 17:41               ` Stefan Smietanowski
  1 sibling, 2 replies; 79+ messages in thread
From: Jeff Garzik @ 2003-12-02 16:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Darrell Michaud
  Cc: Marcelo Tosatti, Russell Cattelan, Nathan Scott, linux-kernel,
	linux-xfs, Andrew Morton

On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 11:10:43AM -0500, Darrell Michaud wrote:
> 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!

This can also be done in patch form, as it is done now :)

There are several pieces of backported software that are
integration-ready, but that doesn't imply they should go into an
increasingly-frozen 2.4.x tree...

	Jeff




^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 79+ messages in thread

* Re: XFS for 2.4
  2003-12-02 16:28             ` Jeff Garzik
@ 2003-12-02 16:57               ` venom
  2003-12-02 17:41               ` Stefan Smietanowski
  1 sibling, 0 replies; 79+ messages in thread
From: venom @ 2003-12-02 16:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Jeff Garzik
  Cc: Darrell Michaud, Marcelo Tosatti, Russell Cattelan, Nathan Scott,
	linux-kernel, linux-xfs, Andrew Morton

On Tue, 2 Dec 2003, Jeff Garzik wrote:

>
> This can also be done in patch form, as it is done now :)
>

of course.
2.4 systems that are already using XFS as a patch probably would have a benefit
to see it integrated into 2.4 kernel, but they would is it anyway as a patch.

I do not think the merge would be usefull thinking to a from2.4/to2.6 upgrade.
In fact, if a system is not using XFS already, it is difficoult
that a filesystem is changed if it is an upgrade and not a reinstallation.

So, at the end, to have XFS just as a patch for 2.4 is not so bad.

Luigi


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 79+ messages in thread

* Re: XFS for 2.4
  2003-12-02 16:28             ` Jeff Garzik
  2003-12-02 16:57               ` venom
@ 2003-12-02 17:41               ` Stefan Smietanowski
  1 sibling, 0 replies; 79+ messages in thread
From: Stefan Smietanowski @ 2003-12-02 17:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Jeff Garzik
  Cc: Darrell Michaud, Marcelo Tosatti, Russell Cattelan, Nathan Scott,
	linux-kernel, linux-xfs, Andrew Morton

Jeff Garzik wrote:

> On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 11:10:43AM -0500, Darrell Michaud wrote:
> 
>>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!
> 
> 
> This can also be done in patch form, as it is done now :)
> 
> There are several pieces of backported software that are
> integration-ready, but that doesn't imply they should go into an
> increasingly-frozen 2.4.x tree...

Good point, however the XFS code has been ready for way longer
than some other things that were integrated have existed at all.

There was a question to merge XFS before 2.4 but the answer was no
then. That was eons ago and reiserfs and JFS has made it in since then
but not XFS. That strikes me as odd. Everybody have been patient and
changing the code according to how it might get accepted and it still
hasn't been merged. Many people have run XFS for a long time and while
they can use the same way they do now (xfs-patches or precompiled RPM)
I don't see a motivation not to include it, especially seeing that
other filesystems got in. True XFS touches some generic code but
if that really is an issue, why don't people sit down and look at the
changes (again) and see what can be changed. If that's the reason.

// Stefan


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 79+ messages in thread

* Re: XFS for 2.4
  2003-12-02 15:50         ` Marcelo Tosatti
  2003-12-02 16:10           ` Darrell Michaud
@ 2003-12-02 18:01           ` Russell Cattelan
  1 sibling, 0 replies; 79+ messages in thread
From: Russell Cattelan @ 2003-12-02 18:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Marcelo Tosatti; +Cc: Nathan Scott, linux-kernel, linux-xfs, Andrew Morton

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





^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 79+ messages in thread

* Re: XFS for 2.4
  2003-12-02 11:22         ` Marcelo Tosatti
@ 2003-12-02 18:05           ` Austin Gonyou
  2003-12-02 19:55           ` Stephan von Krawczynski
  2003-12-03 19:01           ` bill davidsen
  2 siblings, 0 replies; 79+ messages in thread
From: Austin Gonyou @ 2003-12-02 18:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Marcelo Tosatti; +Cc: Nathan Scott, Larry McVoy, linux-kernel, XFS List

On Tue, 2003-12-02 at 05:22, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> [...]
> My whole point is "2.6 is almost out of the door and its so much
> better".  
> Its much faster, much cleaner. 

I agree with this, even in spite of my earlier arguments. I do like 2.6,
but I think there are some valid points listed recently for 2.4
inclusion. I might just be an end-user, but I do appreciate XFS for what
it is, and have been using it for a while now. It just seems like
natural inclusion at this point almost "just makes sense."


-- 
Austin Gonyou <austin@coremetrics.com>
Coremetrics, Inc.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 79+ messages in thread

* Re: XFS for 2.4
  2003-12-02 11:22         ` Marcelo Tosatti
  2003-12-02 18:05           ` Austin Gonyou
@ 2003-12-02 19:55           ` Stephan von Krawczynski
  2003-12-02 20:05             ` Marcelo Tosatti
  2003-12-02 20:16             ` Lawrence Walton
  2003-12-03 19:01           ` bill davidsen
  2 siblings, 2 replies; 79+ messages in thread
From: Stephan von Krawczynski @ 2003-12-02 19:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Marcelo Tosatti; +Cc: nathans, lm, linux-kernel, linux-xfs

On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 09:22:48 -0200 (BRST)
Marcelo Tosatti <marcelo.tosatti@cyclades.com> wrote:

> [...]
> A development tree is much different from a stable tree. You cant just
> simply backport generic VFS changes just because everybody agreed with
> them on the development tree.
> 
> My whole point is "2.6 is almost out of the door and its so much better".  
> Its much faster, much cleaner. 

Even if I am a bit off-topic here, please reconsider your last sentence. Don't
make people think that 2.6 is in a widely useable state right now. Just take a
look at the history of 2.4. Don't forget 2.4 can be used in boxes beyond 4 GB
only right _now_ (2.4.23), all previous versions fall completely apart on i386
platform. 2.4 is right now nice, useable and pretty stable - and 2.6 has not
even begun to see the real-and-ugly world yet. There will for sure be a lot of
interesting test cases during the next months for 2.6, but there are quite an
amount of people that need a real stable environment - and that's why they will
have to use 2.4 for at least one year from now on.

This is no vote for or against XFS-inclusion, I don't know the thing at all. I
only want to state: developer environment is pretty different from the real
world, so don't dump 2.4 too early please.

Regards,
Stephan



^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 79+ messages in thread

* Re: XFS for 2.4
  2003-12-02 19:55           ` Stephan von Krawczynski
@ 2003-12-02 20:05             ` Marcelo Tosatti
  2003-12-02 20:16             ` Lawrence Walton
  1 sibling, 0 replies; 79+ messages in thread
From: Marcelo Tosatti @ 2003-12-02 20:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Stephan von Krawczynski
  Cc: Marcelo Tosatti, nathans, lm, linux-kernel, linux-xfs



On Tue, 2 Dec 2003, Stephan von Krawczynski wrote:

> On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 09:22:48 -0200 (BRST)
> Marcelo Tosatti <marcelo.tosatti@cyclades.com> wrote:
> 
> > [...]
> > A development tree is much different from a stable tree. You cant just
> > simply backport generic VFS changes just because everybody agreed with
> > them on the development tree.
> > 
> > My whole point is "2.6 is almost out of the door and its so much better".  
> > Its much faster, much cleaner. 
> 
> Even if I am a bit off-topic here, please reconsider your last sentence. Don't
> make people think that 2.6 is in a widely useable state right now. Just take a
> look at the history of 2.4. Don't forget 2.4 can be used in boxes beyond 4 GB
> only right _now_ (2.4.23), all previous versions fall completely apart on i386
> platform. 2.4 is right now nice, useable and pretty stable - and 2.6 has not
> even begun to see the real-and-ugly world yet. There will for sure be a lot of
> interesting test cases during the next months for 2.6, but there are quite an
> amount of people that need a real stable environment - and that's why they will
> have to use 2.4 for at least one year from now on.
> 
> This is no vote for or against XFS-inclusion, I don't know the thing at all. I
> only want to state: developer environment is pretty different from the real
> world, so don't dump 2.4 too early please.

I'm not dumping 2.4. It will enter "maintenance-only" mode in 2.4.25. It
will be update as long as there are problems in it, but no more features
will creep in.

As for XFS, Christoph will review the patches and tell me what he thinks. 

Also other people mailed me saying they reviewed the code.

That makes me more comfortable with merging the XFS modifications.






^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 79+ messages in thread

* Re: XFS for 2.4
  2003-12-02 19:55           ` Stephan von Krawczynski
  2003-12-02 20:05             ` Marcelo Tosatti
@ 2003-12-02 20:16             ` Lawrence Walton
  1 sibling, 0 replies; 79+ messages in thread
From: Lawrence Walton @ 2003-12-02 20:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: linux-kernel

<snip>
> Even if I am a bit off-topic here, please reconsider your last sentence. Don't
> make people think that 2.6 is in a widely useable state right now. Just take a
> look at the history of 2.4. Don't forget 2.4 can be used in boxes beyond 4 GB
> only right _now_ (2.4.23), all previous versions fall completely apart on i386
> platform. 2.4 is right now nice, useable and pretty stable - and 2.6 has not
> even begun to see the real-and-ugly world yet. There will for sure be a lot of
> interesting test cases during the next months for 2.6, but there are quite an
> amount of people that need a real stable environment - and that's why they will
> have to use 2.4 for at least one year from now on.
> 
Ye gods I'm going to regret butting into this conversation but...

I have moved a couple servers successfully to 2.6.0-pre9, felt (over)
confident that 2.6.x would work on my busiest server. It was a mistake,
lightly loaded it worked great. As user logged in that morning the
server became unstable, processes started waiting forever and hanging,
imap mostly, later exim and openldap. I never reported it for lack of
good debugging info, I plan to take another wack at it in a month or so.


2.4.x is my only option, I would imagine I'm not in the minority here.
I do use XFS, not on this particular server but I do use it and would
like to see it included into 2.4.x for no other reason than 2.6.x is not
stable in all situations.

-- 
*--* Mail: lawrence@otak.com
*--* Voice: 425.739.4247
*--* Fax: 425.827.9577
*--* HTTP://the-penguin.otak.com/~lawrence
--------------------------------------
- - - - - - O t a k  i n c . - - - - - 



^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 79+ messages in thread

* Re: XFS for 2.4
  2003-12-02 11:22         ` Marcelo Tosatti
  2003-12-02 18:05           ` Austin Gonyou
  2003-12-02 19:55           ` Stephan von Krawczynski
@ 2003-12-03 19:01           ` bill davidsen
  2003-12-03 20:45             ` Willy Tarreau
  2 siblings, 1 reply; 79+ messages in thread
From: bill davidsen @ 2003-12-03 19:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: linux-kernel

In article <Pine.LNX.4.44.0312020919410.13692-100000@logos.cnet>,
Marcelo Tosatti  <marcelo.tosatti@cyclades.com> wrote:

| A development tree is much different from a stable tree. You cant just
| simply backport generic VFS changes just because everybody agreed with
| them on the development tree.
| 
| My whole point is "2.6 is almost out of the door and its so much better".  
| Its much faster, much cleaner. 

Yes, a development tree is much different than a stable tree, and even
though the number has gone to 2.6, it's very much a development tree, in
that it's still being used by the same people, and probably not getting
a lot of new testing. Stability is unlikely to be production quality
until fixes go in for problems in mass testing, which won't happen until
it shows up in a vendor release, which won't happen until the vendors
test and clean up what they find... In other words, I don't expect it to
be "really stable" for six months at least, maybe a year.

As for "much faster," let's say that I don't see that on any apples to
apples benchmark. If you measure new threading against 2.4 threading
there is a significant gain, but for anything else the gains just don't
seem to warrant a "much" and there are some regressions shown in other
people's data.

I think 2.6 has new features, it is more scalable, but other than
threads I don't see any huge performance gains.
-- 
bill davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com>
  CTO, TMR Associates, Inc
Doing interesting things with little computers since 1979.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 79+ messages in thread

* Re: XFS for 2.4
  2003-12-03 19:01           ` bill davidsen
@ 2003-12-03 20:45             ` Willy Tarreau
  2003-12-03 21:17               ` bill davidsen
  2003-12-04  0:34               ` Clemens Schwaighofer
  0 siblings, 2 replies; 79+ messages in thread
From: Willy Tarreau @ 2003-12-03 20:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: bill davidsen; +Cc: linux-kernel

On Wed, Dec 03, 2003 at 07:01:39PM +0000, bill davidsen wrote:
 
> Yes, a development tree is much different than a stable tree, and even
> though the number has gone to 2.6, it's very much a development tree, in
> that it's still being used by the same people, and probably not getting
> a lot of new testing. Stability is unlikely to be production quality
> until fixes go in for problems in mass testing, which won't happen until
> it shows up in a vendor release, which won't happen until the vendors
> test and clean up what they find... In other words, I don't expect it to
> be "really stable" for six months at least, maybe a year.

There even are people using 2.2 on production and/or desktop computers. I
know some of them. Many people jumped from 2.2 to 2.4 because of USB, but
since it was backported into 2.2.18, many people prefered to stick to 2.2.

> As for "much faster," let's say that I don't see that on any apples to
> apples benchmark. If you measure new threading against 2.4 threading
> there is a significant gain, but for anything else the gains just don't
> seem to warrant a "much" and there are some regressions shown in other
> people's data.

I second this. I've already tested several 2.5 and 2.6-test, and I'm
really deceived by the scheduler. It looks a lot more as a hack to
satisfy xmms users than something usable. I'm doing 'ls -ltr' all the
day in directories filled with 2000 files, and it takes ages to complete.
I'm even at the point to which I add a "|tail" to make things go faster.

For instance, time typically reports 0.03u, 0.03s, 2.8 real. It seems as
each line sent to xterm consumes one full clock tick doing nothing. I
never reported it yet because I don't have time to investigate, and it
seems more important that people don't hear skips in xmms while compiling
their kernel with "make -j 256" on a 16 MB machine. Second test : launch
10 times : xterm -e "find /" & and look how some windows freeze for up
to 10 seconds... I don't think this is a problem right now. We've seen
lots of work in the scheduler area, many people proposing theirs, and
this will stabilize once 2.6 is out and people start to describe what
they really do with it and what they feel.

Don't take me wrong, I don't want to whine nor offend anyone here. I
think that Ingo and other people like Con have done a very great job
at optimizing this scheduler. I just wish we could choose one depending
on what we want to do with it.

Just my 2 cents,
Willy


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 79+ messages in thread

* Re: XFS for 2.4
  2003-12-03 20:45             ` Willy Tarreau
@ 2003-12-03 21:17               ` bill davidsen
  2003-12-03 21:48                 ` Joel Becker
  2003-12-03 22:08                 ` Ed Sweetman
  2003-12-04  0:34               ` Clemens Schwaighofer
  1 sibling, 2 replies; 79+ messages in thread
From: bill davidsen @ 2003-12-03 21:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: willy; +Cc: linux-kernel

In article <20031203204518.GA11325@alpha.home.local> you write:
| On Wed, Dec 03, 2003 at 07:01:39PM +0000, bill davidsen wrote:
|  
| > Yes, a development tree is much different than a stable tree, and even
| > though the number has gone to 2.6, it's very much a development tree, in
| > that it's still being used by the same people, and probably not getting
| > a lot of new testing. Stability is unlikely to be production quality
| > until fixes go in for problems in mass testing, which won't happen until
| > it shows up in a vendor release, which won't happen until the vendors
| > test and clean up what they find... In other words, I don't expect it to
| > be "really stable" for six months at least, maybe a year.
| 
| There even are people using 2.2 on production and/or desktop computers. I
| know some of them. Many people jumped from 2.2 to 2.4 because of USB, but
| since it was backported into 2.2.18, many people prefered to stick to 2.2.

I still have a 2.0.30 machine, not network connected, does what I want.
| 
| > As for "much faster," let's say that I don't see that on any apples to
| > apples benchmark. If you measure new threading against 2.4 threading
| > there is a significant gain, but for anything else the gains just don't
| > seem to warrant a "much" and there are some regressions shown in other
| > people's data.
| 
| I second this. I've already tested several 2.5 and 2.6-test, and I'm
| really deceived by the scheduler. It looks a lot more as a hack to
| satisfy xmms users than something usable. I'm doing 'ls -ltr' all the
| day in directories filled with 2000 files, and it takes ages to complete.
| I'm even at the point to which I add a "|tail" to make things go faster.

Just tried that, test11 seems better behaved. I've been running Nick's
patches, for general use they work better for me, I can stand a skip a
few times a day.
| 
| For instance, time typically reports 0.03u, 0.03s, 2.8 real. It seems as
| each line sent to xterm consumes one full clock tick doing nothing. I
| never reported it yet because I don't have time to investigate, and it
| seems more important that people don't hear skips in xmms while compiling
| their kernel with "make -j 256" on a 16 MB machine. Second test : launch
| 10 times : xterm -e "find /" & and look how some windows freeze for up
| to 10 seconds... I don't think this is a problem right now. We've seen
| lots of work in the scheduler area, many people proposing theirs, and
| this will stabilize once 2.6 is out and people start to describe what
| they really do with it and what they feel.
| 
| Don't take me wrong, I don't want to whine nor offend anyone here. I
| think that Ingo and other people like Con have done a very great job
| at optimizing this scheduler. I just wish we could choose one depending
| on what we want to do with it.

It has been proposed, but people more influentional than I, that
scheduling be a module with some base doorknob scheduler as default if
not better scheduler is chosen.
-- 
bill davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com>
  CTO, TMR Associates, Inc
Doing interesting things with little computers since 1979.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 79+ messages in thread

* Re: XFS for 2.4
  2003-12-03 21:17               ` bill davidsen
@ 2003-12-03 21:48                 ` Joel Becker
  2003-12-03 22:17                   ` bill davidsen
  2003-12-03 22:08                 ` Ed Sweetman
  1 sibling, 1 reply; 79+ messages in thread
From: Joel Becker @ 2003-12-03 21:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: bill davidsen; +Cc: willy, linux-kernel

On Wed, Dec 03, 2003 at 04:17:50PM -0500, bill davidsen wrote:
> In article <20031203204518.GA11325@alpha.home.local> you write:
> | I second this. I've already tested several 2.5 and 2.6-test, and I'm
> | really deceived by the scheduler. It looks a lot more as a hack to
> | satisfy xmms users than something usable. I'm doing 'ls -ltr' all the
> | day in directories filled with 2000 files, and it takes ages to complete.
> | I'm even at the point to which I add a "|tail" to make things go faster.
> 
> Just tried that, test11 seems better behaved. I've been running Nick's
> patches, for general use they work better for me, I can stand a skip a
> few times a day.

	Just another datapoint.  On my 300MHz PII laptop, ls and tab
completion often hang, taking up 100% CPU on -test11.  2.4.19-pre3-ac2,
my 2.4 kernel, doesn't even blip the CPU.
	That said, -test11 performs much better than 2.4.2[01], which
used to pause the system entirely for 30 seconds or more.
	If there are any knobs I can turn to tweak this, I'm interested.

Joel

-- 

Life's Little Instruction Book #347

	"Never waste the oppourtunity to tell someone you love them."

Joel Becker
Senior Member of Technical Staff
Oracle Corporation
E-mail: joel.becker@oracle.com
Phone: (650) 506-8127

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 79+ messages in thread

* Re: XFS for 2.4
  2003-12-03 21:17               ` bill davidsen
  2003-12-03 21:48                 ` Joel Becker
@ 2003-12-03 22:08                 ` Ed Sweetman
  2003-12-04  5:21                   ` Willy Tarreau
  1 sibling, 1 reply; 79+ messages in thread
From: Ed Sweetman @ 2003-12-03 22:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: bill davidsen; +Cc: willy, linux-kernel

bill davidsen wrote:
> In article <20031203204518.GA11325@alpha.home.local> you write:
> | On Wed, Dec 03, 2003 at 07:01:39PM +0000, bill davidsen wrote:
> |  
> | > Yes, a development tree is much different than a stable tree, and even
> | > though the number has gone to 2.6, it's very much a development tree, in
> | > that it's still being used by the same people, and probably not getting
> | > a lot of new testing. Stability is unlikely to be production quality
> | > until fixes go in for problems in mass testing, which won't happen until
> | > it shows up in a vendor release, which won't happen until the vendors
> | > test and clean up what they find... In other words, I don't expect it to
> | > be "really stable" for six months at least, maybe a year.
> | 
> | There even are people using 2.2 on production and/or desktop computers. I
> | know some of them. Many people jumped from 2.2 to 2.4 because of USB, but
> | since it was backported into 2.2.18, many people prefered to stick to 2.2.
> 
> I still have a 2.0.30 machine, not network connected, does what I want.
> | 
> | > As for "much faster," let's say that I don't see that on any apples to
> | > apples benchmark. If you measure new threading against 2.4 threading
> | > there is a significant gain, but for anything else the gains just don't
> | > seem to warrant a "much" and there are some regressions shown in other
> | > people's data.
> | 
> | I second this. I've already tested several 2.5 and 2.6-test, and I'm
> | really deceived by the scheduler. It looks a lot more as a hack to
> | satisfy xmms users than something usable. I'm doing 'ls -ltr' all the
> | day in directories filled with 2000 files, and it takes ages to complete.
> | I'm even at the point to which I add a "|tail" to make things go faster.
> 
> Just tried that, test11 seems better behaved. I've been running Nick's
> patches, for general use they work better for me, I can stand a skip a
> few times a day.
> | 
> | For instance, time typically reports 0.03u, 0.03s, 2.8 real. It seems as
> | each line sent to xterm consumes one full clock tick doing nothing. I
> | never reported it yet because I don't have time to investigate, and it
> | seems more important that people don't hear skips in xmms while compiling
> | their kernel with "make -j 256" on a 16 MB machine. Second test : launch
> | 10 times : xterm -e "find /" & and look how some windows freeze for up
> | to 10 seconds... I don't think this is a problem right now. We've seen
> | lots of work in the scheduler area, many people proposing theirs, and
> | this will stabilize once 2.6 is out and people start to describe what
> | they really do with it and what they feel.

The windows can freeze for many reasons. You could be running X in a 
lower priority, painting X terms is heavy on X using that command and it 
can steal cpu from the terminal who's process is working in retrieving 
data from the fs. No dma on the hdds, Etc.  I ran this command using 
test11 with akpm's test10-mm1 patch applied and 10 were going just fine. 
  All going at the same time along with mplayer playing a divx movie. No 
skips in video or audio and all the terminals were updating as rapidly 
as they could with no pauses of noticable length.
The schedular is nothing short of incredibly better than 2.4.x and 
prior.  Despite the xmms croud's loud cries of trying to get the kernel 
to fix their player's performance which seems to always suffer more than 
any other player i've tried.


> | Don't take me wrong, I don't want to whine nor offend anyone here. I
> | think that Ingo and other people like Con have done a very great job
> | at optimizing this scheduler. I just wish we could choose one depending
> | on what we want to do with it.
> 
> It has been proposed, but people more influentional than I, that
> scheduling be a module with some base doorknob scheduler as default if
> not better scheduler is chosen.

having to manually adjust the schedular is seen by many as a fault in 
the design of the schedular.  The perfect schedular would be able to 
adjust itself automatically on it's own.  If that's perfect, then even 
if it's likely impossible to achieve it, it makes sense to strive to get 
as close to it as possible rather than create a set of separate 
schedulars which the root user (which really shouldn't be doing anything 
on the system all the time anyway) has to select whenever their workload 
changes from one goal to another.


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 79+ messages in thread

* Re: XFS for 2.4
  2003-12-03 21:48                 ` Joel Becker
@ 2003-12-03 22:17                   ` bill davidsen
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 79+ messages in thread
From: bill davidsen @ 2003-12-03 22:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: linux-kernel

In article <20031203214819.GD11065@ca-server1.us.oracle.com>,
Joel Becker  <Joel.Becker@oracle.com> wrote:

| 	Just another datapoint.  On my 300MHz PII laptop, ls and tab
| completion often hang, taking up 100% CPU on -test11.  2.4.19-pre3-ac2,
| my 2.4 kernel, doesn't even blip the CPU.

That's funny! I'm running 2.4.19-pre2-ac2 plus three patches which
solved something I'd have to rethink to describe. But most of my laptops
suspend fine with APM and 2.4, and suspend fine with 2.6 and ACPI but
never return to life... I realize APM is depreciated with 2.6, so I'm
resigned to 2.4 on those machines.

| 	That said, -test11 performs much better than 2.4.2[01], which
| used to pause the system entirely for 30 seconds or more.
| 	If there are any knobs I can turn to tweak this, I'm interested.

The last time I tried Nick's patches was on test15, there are only so
many hours in my day, and my best test machine is slow enough to
discourage building a lot of kernels. You might see if his version 15
patches will work on test11, or if test10-mm1 works better for you.
Since you're looking for knobs... You might also look at the swappiness
(/proc/sys/vm/swappiness) to see if that changes the stuff which bugs
you. 
-- 
bill davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com>
  CTO, TMR Associates, Inc
Doing interesting things with little computers since 1979.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 79+ messages in thread

* Re: XFS for 2.4
  2003-12-03 20:45             ` Willy Tarreau
  2003-12-03 21:17               ` bill davidsen
@ 2003-12-04  0:34               ` Clemens Schwaighofer
  2003-12-04  5:33                 ` Willy Tarreau
  1 sibling, 1 reply; 79+ messages in thread
From: Clemens Schwaighofer @ 2003-12-04  0:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Willy Tarreau; +Cc: bill davidsen, linux-kernel

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Willy Tarreau wrote:
| On Wed, Dec 03, 2003 at 07:01:39PM +0000, bill davidsen wrote:

| For instance, time typically reports 0.03u, 0.03s, 2.8 real. It seems as
| each line sent to xterm consumes one full clock tick doing nothing. I
| never reported it yet because I don't have time to investigate, and it
| seems more important that people don't hear skips in xmms while compiling
| their kernel with "make -j 256" on a 16 MB machine. Second test : launch
| 10 times : xterm -e "find /" & and look how some windows freeze for up
| to 10 seconds... I don't think this is a problem right now. We've seen
| lots of work in the scheduler area, many people proposing theirs, and
| this will stabilize once 2.6 is out and people start to describe what
| they really do with it and what they feel.

Well, I had to try that here. I've got a Celeron 650Mhz with 320MB ram
and a crappy 14GB HD and yes the finds in the xterms are stopping for
some time ... BUT X is 100% responsive. there is no sluggishness, I can
use mozilla, etc without a problem. so seriously, who makes 10 finds at
the same time and finds are read from FS (I have XFS) so it might be a
problem with that. So I don't think the scheduler is bad, I think it is
great. When I switched to 2.5 the first time on that box it was like
"WOW", so little swapping and KDE is so smooth ... thats so wow ...

Still there are some minor problems (japanese keyboard eg) but that will
smooth out when Programs get adapted.

But for your problem, it might get better for these kind of things in
later versions :)

- --
Clemens Schwaighofer - IT Engineer & System Administration
==========================================================
Tequila Japan, 6-17-2 Ginza Chuo-ku, Tokyo 104-8167, JAPAN
Tel: +81-(0)3-3545-7703            Fax: +81-(0)3-3545-7343
http://www.tequila.jp
==========================================================
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQE/zoEPjBz/yQjBxz8RAjsEAKCO3Nvs/5r/6HgRh9Z83T2SlQmfIgCfQHl5
jbHM0IQVD/buJjD/I2Shv9k=
=YOth
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 79+ messages in thread

* Re: XFS for 2.4
  2003-12-03 22:08                 ` Ed Sweetman
@ 2003-12-04  5:21                   ` Willy Tarreau
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 79+ messages in thread
From: Willy Tarreau @ 2003-12-04  5:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Ed Sweetman; +Cc: bill davidsen, linux-kernel

On Wed, Dec 03, 2003 at 05:08:55PM -0500, Ed Sweetman wrote:
 
> The windows can freeze for many reasons. You could be running X in a 
> lower priority, painting X terms is heavy on X using that command and it 
> can steal cpu from the terminal who's process is working in retrieving 
> data from the fs. No dma on the hdds, Etc.

sorry I gave no info. disk is SCSI and is *not* sollicited at all because
everything fits in cache. If I was speaking about the scheduler, it's
because it's really a CU scheduling behaviour and not an I/O scheduling
behaviour. I never changed my X priority, and in 2.4, all windows are
fluid because timeslices are evenly distributed.

>  I ran this command using 
> test11 with akpm's test10-mm1 patch applied and 10 were going just fine. 
>  All going at the same time along with mplayer playing a divx movie. No 
> skips in video or audio and all the terminals were updating as rapidly 
> as they could with no pauses of noticable length.

bingo ! you're in the exact case where people try to detect skips in their
players. I suspect that your player and your xterms don't go too fast and
are detected as interactive task by the scheduler. So they don't go very
fast, but they are all fluid. Now if you can feed saturate a CPU by feeding
6000 lines/s to an xterm during 1 minute and can repeat this on 10 xterms,
they won't become interactive at all, and now you'll see that some of them
scroll smoothly while others are stopped. If you put your pointer into them
and strike a key, they often start again.

> The schedular is nothing short of incredibly better than 2.4.x and 
> prior.

I also think it's better for many workloads. I only say that we can easily
identify *some* workloads for which it simply fails to be fair, and although
these workload are not more representative than xmms while compiling a kernel,
they might match other applications' behaviour. For instance, I don't know
if a system which runs all the day at 100% CPU compressing logs asynchronously
won't suffer from this.

> Despite the xmms croud's loud cries of trying to get the kernel 
> to fix their player's performance which seems to always suffer more than 
> any other player i've tried.

I totally agree. I've used mpg123 from my old P166+ years ago, to my dual
xp1800 and on my notebooks, I've also tried madplay, and I've yet to hear
what a skip sounds like.

> having to manually adjust the schedular is seen by many as a fault in 
> the design of the schedular.  The perfect schedular would be able to 
> adjust itself automatically on it's own.

I don't agree here. No system knows better than the admin what he's doing.
If this was the case, the 'nice' command would never have been invented.

> if it's likely impossible to achieve it, it makes sense to strive to get 
> as close to it as possible rather than create a set of separate 
> schedulars which the root user (which really shouldn't be doing anything 
> on the system all the time anyway) has to select whenever their workload 
> changes from one goal to another.

The root you're talking about is also the same person who installs a server
for a dedicated task and sometimes the same person who discovered a profund
scheduling problem on the same system two racks away. As long as your systems
don't share their experiences, it's up to the humans to tell them.

Willy


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 79+ messages in thread

* Re: XFS for 2.4
  2003-12-04  0:34               ` Clemens Schwaighofer
@ 2003-12-04  5:33                 ` Willy Tarreau
  2003-12-04 10:13                   ` Clemens Schwaighofer
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 79+ messages in thread
From: Willy Tarreau @ 2003-12-04  5:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Clemens Schwaighofer; +Cc: bill davidsen, linux-kernel

On Thu, Dec 04, 2003 at 09:34:23AM +0900, Clemens Schwaighofer wrote:
 
> Well, I had to try that here. I've got a Celeron 650Mhz with 320MB ram
> and a crappy 14GB HD and yes the finds in the xterms are stopping for
> some time ... BUT X is 100% responsive.  there is no sluggishness, I can
> use mozilla, etc without a problem. so seriously, who makes 10 finds at
> the same time and finds are read from FS (I have XFS) so it might be a
> problem with that.

This exact workload is probably not needed by anybody. But my concern is
that if it fails here, then possibily other realistic workloads will fail
too. But since it's hard to identify, that's why I'm waiting for distros
to ship first releases, and for a few people to tell us about particular
cases where they are annoyed. Ingo, Con, Nick and others obviously cannot
make the greatest scheduler in the world without valuable feedback. And
I have the feeling that all they got was "bad...bad...bad.. STOP!! don't
touch anything, XMMS is now great".

Production workloads are typically different. Perhaps my 10 xterms produce
the same type of load as 10 persons grepping gigs of logs from memory ?
And perhaps my "ls -ltr" produce the same workload as... someone searching
a recent file with "ls -ltr".

> So I don't think the scheduler is bad, I think it is
> great. When I switched to 2.5 the first time on that box it was like
> "WOW", so little swapping and KDE is so smooth ... thats so wow ...

I too think it's great and smoother than 2.4. It obviously makes a difference
if you use X (and I don't use these KDE, etc...). But the smoothness was
also brought to 2.4 by patches such as rmap, preempt, variable-hz. All of
them have been merged into 2.6, so we cannot deny that they helped too.

> But for your problem, it might get better for these kind of things in
> later versions :)

-test10 was NOK. I'll try test11, and when I've time I'll try Nick's
scheduler too.

Cheers,
Willy


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 79+ messages in thread

* Re: XFS for 2.4
  2003-12-04  5:33                 ` Willy Tarreau
@ 2003-12-04 10:13                   ` Clemens Schwaighofer
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 79+ messages in thread
From: Clemens Schwaighofer @ 2003-12-04 10:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Willy Tarreau; +Cc: bill davidsen, linux-kernel

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Willy Tarreau wrote:
| On Thu, Dec 04, 2003 at 09:34:23AM +0900, Clemens Schwaighofer wrote:

| Production workloads are typically different. Perhaps my 10 xterms produce
| the same type of load as 10 persons grepping gigs of logs from memory ?
| And perhaps my "ls -ltr" produce the same workload as... someone searching
| a recent file with "ls -ltr"

well I don't know, I don't use this box full time, but quite a lot, I do
a lot of compiling on it. Run Mozilla, etc on it, copy big files, etc,
but I never had any serious "lock" problems, where everthing freezes for
a second like I have from time to time in 2.4

|>So I don't think the scheduler is bad, I think it is
|>great. When I switched to 2.5 the first time on that box it was like
|>"WOW", so little swapping and KDE is so smooth ... thats so wow ...
|
|
| I too think it's great and smoother than 2.4. It obviously makes a
difference
| if you use X (and I don't use these KDE, etc...). But the smoothness was
| also brought to 2.4 by patches such as rmap, preempt, variable-hz. All of
| them have been merged into 2.6, so we cannot deny that they helped too.

well on my working bux I run 2.4.22-ck3 and this has a lot of preempt
workstation speedup stuff inside, but it still freezes from time to time
if there is a peak in workload.

|>But for your problem, it might get better for these kind of things in
|>later versions :)
|
| -test10 was NOK. I'll try test11, and when I've time I'll try Nick's
| scheduler too.

well test11 is very smooth. I haven't tried Nick scheduler but I might
give it a shot, just to see how the "xterm craziness" goes ... :)

- --
Clemens Schwaighofer - IT Engineer & System Administration
==========================================================
Tequila Japan, 6-17-2 Ginza Chuo-ku, Tokyo 104-8167, JAPAN
Tel: +81-(0)3-3545-7703            Fax: +81-(0)3-3545-7343
http://www.tequila.jp
==========================================================
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQE/zwjGjBz/yQjBxz8RAmJyAJ4jA3q9yqaYxIjI3PT1ueHHwjUeuACeOWdS
Lp4cfDBErPBrd0df27xRygY=
=ffb4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 79+ messages in thread

* Re: 2.4 vs 2.6
  2003-12-14  1:08   ` 2.4 vs 2.6 Jan Rychter
@ 2003-12-14  1:01     ` Roberto Sanchez
  2003-12-14 11:23       ` Måns Rullgård
  2003-12-14  1:53     ` Daniel Gryniewicz
                       ` (3 subsequent siblings)
  4 siblings, 1 reply; 79+ messages in thread
From: Roberto Sanchez @ 2003-12-14  1:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: linux-kernel

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2869 bytes --]

Jan Rychter wrote:
>>>>>>"Marcelo" == Marcelo Tosatti <marcelo.tosatti@cyclades.com> writes:
> 
> [...]
>  Marcelo> 2.6 is already stable enough for people to use it.
> 
> Yes, that's an old post I'm responding to, but I've just given 2.6 a try
> on my desktop machine, and the above statement seems even more
> annoying. I hit the following problems:
> 
>   -- I had to wrestle ATI drivers into compiling, they finally did, but
>      the kernel prints scary-looking warnings with call stacks, about
>      "sleeping function called from invalid context at mm/slab.c:1856,
I have an nForce2 w/ Radeon 9000.  No problems w/ DRI drivers (included
in kernel) or thi ATI supplied drivers, which ATI says successfully
compiled against 2.6.0-test6.

>   -- modules don't autoload for some reason (though I'm sure that could
>      be solved),
Make sure you have all the different module options turned on.  In 2.6
there are different options for loading, unloading and force unloading
modules.

>   -- bttv does not compile, so no video input for me,
I don't know anything about video input.  Did you try Google?

>   -- drivers for my telephony card (from Digium) are not 2.6-ready, so
>      no telephony support for me,
I don't know anything about telephony.  Did you try Google?

>   -- I have just frozen the machine hard by copying files over NFS and
>      doing a simulation write to an ATAPI CD-RW at the same time.
What CPU/chipset do you have?  There are timing issues with nForce2
and AMD CPUs.  A quick search of the LKML archives will yield lots
of discussion and patcheson this issue.

> 
> I haven't even gotten to VMware and user-mode Linux, which I also need,
> and I'm not even dreaming about getting my scanner to work. Not to
> mention that on my laptop there would be an entirely different set of
> issues, and software suspend in 2.6 is, well, still lacking.
VMWare won't work (according to the VMWare tech support people), but
they will (probably) support 2.6 kernels in their next point release.
I assume you are talking about their workstation product.  SWSusp
works fine on my laptop.

> 
> So, as for me, 2.6 is a definite no-no. I see no advantage whatsoever in
> running it, it caused me nothing but pain, and there is no improvement
> that I could see that would justify the upgrade.
But there is plenty of improvement for plenty of people.

> 
> So please be careful when making statements like that. 2.6 is *NOT*
> stable enough nor ready enough for people to use it, unless those people
> have a narrow range of hardware on which the 2.6 kernel has actually
> been tested (translation: they have the same hardware as the main
> developers do).
I doubt I have the same hardware as the main developers, but I did
read the documentation.  Did you?  Even if it is stable enough for
most people, it is still a beta kernel.

> 
> --J.

-Roberto.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 256 bytes --]

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 79+ messages in thread

* Re: 2.4 vs 2.6
  2003-12-01 14:06 ` Marcelo Tosatti
  2003-12-01 22:10   ` Nathan Scott
  2003-12-02  0:51   ` Clemens Schwaighofer
@ 2003-12-14  1:08   ` Jan Rychter
  2003-12-14  1:01     ` Roberto Sanchez
                       ` (4 more replies)
  2 siblings, 5 replies; 79+ messages in thread
From: Jan Rychter @ 2003-12-14  1:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: linux-kernel

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1681 bytes --]

>>>>> "Marcelo" == Marcelo Tosatti <marcelo.tosatti@cyclades.com> writes:
[...]
 Marcelo> 2.6 is already stable enough for people to use it.

Yes, that's an old post I'm responding to, but I've just given 2.6 a try
on my desktop machine, and the above statement seems even more
annoying. I hit the following problems:

  -- I had to wrestle ATI drivers into compiling, they finally did, but
     the kernel prints scary-looking warnings with call stacks, about
     "sleeping function called from invalid context at mm/slab.c:1856,
  -- modules don't autoload for some reason (though I'm sure that could
     be solved),
  -- bttv does not compile, so no video input for me,
  -- drivers for my telephony card (from Digium) are not 2.6-ready, so
     no telephony support for me,
  -- I have just frozen the machine hard by copying files over NFS and
     doing a simulation write to an ATAPI CD-RW at the same time.

I haven't even gotten to VMware and user-mode Linux, which I also need,
and I'm not even dreaming about getting my scanner to work. Not to
mention that on my laptop there would be an entirely different set of
issues, and software suspend in 2.6 is, well, still lacking.

So, as for me, 2.6 is a definite no-no. I see no advantage whatsoever in
running it, it caused me nothing but pain, and there is no improvement
that I could see that would justify the upgrade.

So please be careful when making statements like that. 2.6 is *NOT*
stable enough nor ready enough for people to use it, unless those people
have a narrow range of hardware on which the 2.6 kernel has actually
been tested (translation: they have the same hardware as the main
developers do).

--J.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 188 bytes --]

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 79+ messages in thread

* Re: 2.4 vs 2.6
  2003-12-14  1:08   ` 2.4 vs 2.6 Jan Rychter
  2003-12-14  1:01     ` Roberto Sanchez
@ 2003-12-14  1:53     ` Daniel Gryniewicz
  2003-12-14  2:01     ` coderman
                       ` (2 subsequent siblings)
  4 siblings, 0 replies; 79+ messages in thread
From: Daniel Gryniewicz @ 2003-12-14  1:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Jan Rychter; +Cc: linux-kernel

On Sat, 2003-12-13 at 20:08, Jan Rychter wrote:
<snip>
> So please be careful when making statements like that. 2.6 is *NOT*
> stable enough nor ready enough for people to use it, unless those people
> have a narrow range of hardware on which the 2.6 kernel has actually
> been tested (translation: they have the same hardware as the main
> developers do).

I have a brand-spanken-new laptop (less than a month old), and all my
hardware works great.  In fact, ATI drivers (only in pre-release X) only
work on 2.6, and ACPI never worked on 2.4.  So, it works better for me
than on 2.4.  Please be careful when saying that 2.4 is better than 2.6,
it's only that way for a narrow set of hardware.
-- 
Daniel Gryniewicz <dang@fprintf.net>

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 79+ messages in thread

* Re: 2.4 vs 2.6
  2003-12-14  1:08   ` 2.4 vs 2.6 Jan Rychter
  2003-12-14  1:01     ` Roberto Sanchez
  2003-12-14  1:53     ` Daniel Gryniewicz
@ 2003-12-14  2:01     ` coderman
  2003-12-14 20:23       ` tabris
  2003-12-14  7:05     ` Voicu Liviu
  2003-12-14 11:24     ` Frederik Deweerdt
  4 siblings, 1 reply; 79+ messages in thread
From: coderman @ 2003-12-14  2:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: linux-kernel

Jan Rychter wrote:

>So, as for me, 2.6 is a definite no-no. I see no advantage whatsoever in
>running it, it caused me nothing but pain, and there is no improvement
>that I could see that would justify the upgrade.
>
>So please be careful when making statements like that. 2.6 is *NOT*
>stable enough nor ready enough for people to use it, unless those people
>have a narrow range of hardware on which the 2.6 kernel has actually
>been tested (translation: they have the same hardware as the main
>developers do).
>  
>
For every person who has problems with 2.6, there are probably 2 others
who have none, and enjoy the benefits of the new features.  2.6 works
great for me, and one a number of hardware configurations including:

- PII-266
- SMP dual PIII-550
- M10000 mini-itx
- 1.1 Ghz Athlon

all with a variety of video chipsets, USB devices, IDE / ATAPI disks
and CD/DVD, sound cards, etc.

I doubt many of these are consistent with the main developers.

2.6 may not be usable for you, but this has no bearing on the utility
of the branch for others.  I have noticed benefits (mainly prempt,
IPSEC, and the IDE device handling) which make it very worthwhile.


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 79+ messages in thread

* Re: 2.4 vs 2.6
  2003-12-14  1:08   ` 2.4 vs 2.6 Jan Rychter
                       ` (2 preceding siblings ...)
  2003-12-14  2:01     ` coderman
@ 2003-12-14  7:05     ` Voicu Liviu
  2003-12-14 16:01       ` Roberto Sanchez
  2003-12-14 11:24     ` Frederik Deweerdt
  4 siblings, 1 reply; 79+ messages in thread
From: Voicu Liviu @ 2003-12-14  7:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Jan Rychter; +Cc: linux-kernel

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Jan Rychter wrote:

|>>>>> "Marcelo" == Marcelo Tosatti
|>>>>> <marcelo.tosatti@cyclades.com> writes:
|
| [...] Marcelo> 2.6 is already stable enough for people to use it.
|
| Yes, that's an old post I'm responding to, but I've just given 2.6
| a try on my desktop machine, and the above statement seems even
| more annoying. I hit the following problems:
|
| -- I had to wrestle ATI drivers into compiling, they finally did,
| but the kernel prints scary-looking warnings with call stacks,
| about "sleeping function called from invalid context at
| mm/slab.c:1856, -- modules don't autoload for some reason (though
| I'm sure that could be solved), -- bttv does not compile, so no
| video input for me, -- drivers for my telephony card (from Digium)
| are not 2.6-ready, so no telephony support for me, -- I have just
| frozen the machine hard by copying files over NFS and doing a
| simulation write to an ATAPI CD-RW at the same time.
|
| I haven't even gotten to VMware and user-mode Linux, which I also
| need, and I'm not even dreaming about getting my scanner to work.
| Not to mention that on my laptop there would be an entirely
| different set of issues, and software suspend in 2.6 is, well,
| still lacking.
|
| So, as for me, 2.6 is a definite no-no. I see no advantage
| whatsoever in running it, it caused me nothing but pain, and there
| is no improvement that I could see that would justify the upgrade.
|
| So please be careful when making statements like that. 2.6 is *NOT*
|  stable enough nor ready enough for people to use it, unless those
| people have a narrow range of hardware on which the 2.6 kernel has
| actually been tested (translation: they have the same hardware as
| the main developers do).
|
| --J.


My specs:
Cpu:Athlon XP 2500+ BARTON {10x190}
Mobo:EPOX 8RDA3 + NFORCE 2
Ram:Corsair TWINX 512 3200LL{dual channel/11-3-2-2.0}
Fan:Cooler Master +7
Video:Hercules 3D Prophet 9600 PRO Radeon 128MB

My Hercules 3D Prophet 9600 PRO Radeon simply freezes my comp. with
ati-drivers from ati.com so I need to press reset!(so I only can run
console)
My sound (nvidia on board) works very shitty and I have no control on
it (level sound I mean).
I was running 2.4.23 vanilla + lvm1 so I moved to 2.6 vanilla+lvm2 and
now I can not move back

These are my biggest problems with 2.6.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE/3Aurkj4I0Et8EMgRArxCAKDbp0uE5mIhA5/5C+v/71tscWneHQCg0h3R
RF2NIf4bbQ3XEMjV6eEePJI=
=7jBp
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----



^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 79+ messages in thread

* Re: 2.4 vs 2.6
  2003-12-14  1:01     ` Roberto Sanchez
@ 2003-12-14 11:23       ` Måns Rullgård
  2003-12-14 18:09         ` Daniel Gryniewicz
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 79+ messages in thread
From: Måns Rullgård @ 2003-12-14 11:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: linux-kernel

Roberto Sanchez <rcsanchez97@yahoo.es> writes:

>> I haven't even gotten to VMware and user-mode Linux, which I also
>> need, and I'm not even dreaming about getting my scanner to
>> work. Not to mention that on my laptop there would be an entirely
>> different set of issues, and software suspend in 2.6 is, well,
>> still lacking.
> VMWare won't work

I've run vmware on a 2.6 kernel.  I found a little patch somewhere
that made it work.

-- 
Måns Rullgård
mru@kth.se


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 79+ messages in thread

* Re: 2.4 vs 2.6
  2003-12-14  1:08   ` 2.4 vs 2.6 Jan Rychter
                       ` (3 preceding siblings ...)
  2003-12-14  7:05     ` Voicu Liviu
@ 2003-12-14 11:24     ` Frederik Deweerdt
  4 siblings, 0 replies; 79+ messages in thread
From: Frederik Deweerdt @ 2003-12-14 11:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: linux-kernel

>   -- bttv does not compile, so no video input for me,
I'm watching TV on 2.6.0-test11 with bttv properly loaded...

bttv: driver version 0.9.12 loaded

Fred


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 79+ messages in thread

* Re: 2.4 vs 2.6
  2003-12-14  7:05     ` Voicu Liviu
@ 2003-12-14 16:01       ` Roberto Sanchez
  2003-12-14 17:32         ` Voicu Liviu
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 79+ messages in thread
From: Roberto Sanchez @ 2003-12-14 16:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: linux-kernel

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 765 bytes --]

Voicu Liviu wrote:
> My specs:
> Cpu:Athlon XP 2500+ BARTON {10x190}
> Mobo:EPOX 8RDA3 + NFORCE 2
> Ram:Corsair TWINX 512 3200LL{dual channel/11-3-2-2.0}
> Fan:Cooler Master +7
> Video:Hercules 3D Prophet 9600 PRO Radeon 128MB
> 
> My Hercules 3D Prophet 9600 PRO Radeon simply freezes my comp. with
> ati-drivers from ati.com so I need to press reset!(so I only can run
> console)
> My sound (nvidia on board) works very shitty and I have no control on
> it (level sound I mean).
> I was running 2.4.23 vanilla + lvm1 so I moved to 2.6 vanilla+lvm2 and
> now I can not move back
> 
> These are my biggest problems with 2.6.


Have you treid the in kernel DRI drivers?  They work with my Radeon
9000 on an nForce2.

Also, why can't you go back to 2.4.23?

-Roberto

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 256 bytes --]

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 79+ messages in thread

* Re: 2.4 vs 2.6
  2003-12-14 16:01       ` Roberto Sanchez
@ 2003-12-14 17:32         ` Voicu Liviu
  2003-12-15  7:23           ` Harry McGregor
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 79+ messages in thread
From: Voicu Liviu @ 2003-12-14 17:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Roberto Sanchez; +Cc: linux-kernel

Roberto Sanchez wrote:

> Voicu Liviu wrote:
>
>> My specs:
>> Cpu:Athlon XP 2500+ BARTON {10x190}
>> Mobo:EPOX 8RDA3 + NFORCE 2
>> Ram:Corsair TWINX 512 3200LL{dual channel/11-3-2-2.0}
>> Fan:Cooler Master +7
>> Video:Hercules 3D Prophet 9600 PRO Radeon 128MB
>>
>> My Hercules 3D Prophet 9600 PRO Radeon simply freezes my comp. with
>> ati-drivers from ati.com so I need to press reset!(so I only can run
>> console)
>> My sound (nvidia on board) works very shitty and I have no control on
>> it (level sound I mean).
>> I was running 2.4.23 vanilla + lvm1 so I moved to 2.6 vanilla+lvm2 and
>> now I can not move back
>>
>> These are my biggest problems with 2.6.
>
>
>
> Have you treid the in kernel DRI drivers?  They work with my Radeon
> 9000 on an nForce2.
>
> Also, why can't you go back to 2.4.23?

Because i use lvm2 and I could not find the way to get back to lvm1
Any clue?

>
> -Roberto

Liviu


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 79+ messages in thread

* Re: 2.4 vs 2.6
  2003-12-14 11:23       ` Måns Rullgård
@ 2003-12-14 18:09         ` Daniel Gryniewicz
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 79+ messages in thread
From: Daniel Gryniewicz @ 2003-12-14 18:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Måns Rullgård; +Cc: linux-kernel

On Sun, 2003-12-14 at 06:23, Måns Rullgård wrote:
> Roberto Sanchez <rcsanchez97@yahoo.es> writes:
> 
> >> I haven't even gotten to VMware and user-mode Linux, which I also
> >> need, and I'm not even dreaming about getting my scanner to
> >> work. Not to mention that on my laptop there would be an entirely
> >> different set of issues, and software suspend in 2.6 is, well,
> >> still lacking.
> > VMWare won't work
> 
> I've run vmware on a 2.6 kernel.  I found a little patch somewhere
> that made it work.

Gentoo automatically applies this patch. :)
-- 
Daniel Gryniewicz <dang@fprintf.net>

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 79+ messages in thread

* Re: 2.4 vs 2.6
  2003-12-14  2:01     ` coderman
@ 2003-12-14 20:23       ` tabris
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 79+ messages in thread
From: tabris @ 2003-12-14 20:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: coderman; +Cc: linux-kernel

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Saturday 13 December 2003 9:01 pm, coderman wrote:
> Jan Rychter wrote:
> >So, as for me, 2.6 is a definite no-no. I see no advantage whatsoever
> > in running it, it caused me nothing but pain, and there is no
> > improvement that I could see that would justify the upgrade.
> >
> >So please be careful when making statements like that. 2.6 is *NOT*
> >stable enough nor ready enough for people to use it, unless those
> > people have a narrow range of hardware on which the 2.6 kernel has
> > actually been tested (translation: they have the same hardware as the
> > main developers do).
>
> For every person who has problems with 2.6, there are probably 2 others
> who have none, and enjoy the benefits of the new features.  2.6 works
> great for me, and one a number of hardware configurations including:
	Somehow, working for 2/3, or even 75% of cases is less than encouraging 
to me.

	Especially if I must not only set up boxes that I may not touch 
physically for days, weeks, etc. Or I suggest which kernel for other 
people to use, due to security fixes (which, iirc, not all 2.4 fixes have 
been forward ported yet), features, etc.

	2.6 is... getting there. and I DO much appreciate the work of the 
developers. But with devfs deprecated, udev still coming into its own 
(Nice work GregKG btw); with the myriad of (user visible) input layer 
changes; the change in focus on initrds (it used to be a nice thing that 
only serious people use. Now, although still optional, it is now becoming 
much more important). Or mebbe consider that the last time I tried to 
install the new modutils (I'm blaming my distro vendor for this), it 
broke my 2.4 modutils, requiring me to boot with init=/bin/sh and fix it 
up.

Sure. little things, but altogether, they add up to a lot more work to 
learn.

<snip>
>
> 2.6 may not be usable for you, but this has no bearing on the utility
> of the branch for others.  I have noticed benefits (mainly prempt,
> IPSEC, and the IDE device handling) which make it very worthwhile.
>
- --
tabris
- -
When asked by an anthropologist what the Indians called America before
the white men came, an Indian said simply "Ours."
		-- Vine Deloria, Jr.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE/3May1U5ZaPMbKQcRApmfAJ9IQexnFORYTaOEpTiyPQnHt3qCMgCeJimh
8hR+oaEqXhBXbVB9tRg9g5M=
=/Cnp
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 79+ messages in thread

* Re: 2.4 vs 2.6
  2003-12-14 17:32         ` Voicu Liviu
@ 2003-12-15  7:23           ` Harry McGregor
  2003-12-15  7:51             ` Voicu Liviu
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 79+ messages in thread
From: Harry McGregor @ 2003-12-15  7:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: linux-kernel

On Sun, 2003-12-14 at 10:32, Voicu Liviu wrote:

> Because i use lvm2 and I could not find the way to get back to lvm1
> Any clue?

How about using the patches for 2.4 to give you LVM2 support?

http://people.sistina.com/~thornber/

We have it running on one system right now, in fact it is part of the
reason that we manually patched our 2.4.21 to fix the local root exploit
that was fixed in 2.4.23, we just had too many external patches
(FreeSwan, DeviceMapper, XFS, etc) on that system, to do patch and
recompile in a reasonable amount of time.


			Harry

> Liviu



^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 79+ messages in thread

* Re: 2.4 vs 2.6
  2003-12-15  7:23           ` Harry McGregor
@ 2003-12-15  7:51             ` Voicu Liviu
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 79+ messages in thread
From: Voicu Liviu @ 2003-12-15  7:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Harry McGregor; +Cc: linux-kernel

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Harry McGregor wrote:

| On Sun, 2003-12-14 at 10:32, Voicu Liviu wrote:
|
|> Because i use lvm2 and I could not find the way to get back to
|> lvm1 Any clue?
|
|
| How about using the patches for 2.4 to give you LVM2 support?
|
| http://people.sistina.com/~thornber/

This url?
http://people.sistina.com/~thornber/patches/2.4-stable/2.4.22/2.4.22-dm-1/
I'll just get the 2.4.23 vanilla and patch it? I'll try
Thanks

|
| We have it running on one system right now, in fact it is part of
| the reason that we manually patched our 2.4.21 to fix the local
| root exploit that was fixed in 2.4.23, we just had too many
| external patches (FreeSwan, DeviceMapper, XFS, etc) on that system,
| to do patch and recompile in a reasonable amount of time.
|
|
| Harry
|
|> Liviu
|
|
|
| - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe
| linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
|  More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
|  Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE/3WgCkj4I0Et8EMgRApIvAKDO8umYrrSqDodby3OWmxwY9x5ejgCg7wZ+
u5SiceDoteNq61XIVK7vD54=
=5qUw
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----



^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 79+ messages in thread

* Re: XFS for 2.4
  2003-12-04  1:27 Xose Vazquez Perez
@ 2003-12-04  2:40 ` Bernd Eckenfels
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 79+ messages in thread
From: Bernd Eckenfels @ 2003-12-04  2:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: linux-kernel

In article <3FCE8D7C.4070704@wanadoo.es> you wrote:
> are really problematic when 2.4 is a *must be stable* .

you mean stable as in "NUMA"?

I can see, that SGI had not the best track in the world in an open
development model. But it is realy true that XFS is the longest maintained,
nearly non intrusive patch which is pending for 2.4. Besides: most
distributions ship it anyway AFAIK.

Greetings
Bernd
-- 
eckes privat - http://www.eckes.org/
Project Freefire - http://www.freefire.org/

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 79+ messages in thread

* Re: XFS for 2.4
@ 2003-12-04  1:27 Xose Vazquez Perez
  2003-12-04  2:40 ` Bernd Eckenfels
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 79+ messages in thread
From: Xose Vazquez Perez @ 2003-12-04  1:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: linux-kernel

davidsen wrote:

> Larry McVoy wrote:

>> It is also not unreasonable to reject a set of changes right before
>> freezing 2.4.  2.4 is supposed to be dead.  Add XFS and what's next?
>> Who's pet feature needs to go in?

> Now that is bullshit and you know it! This is not a pet feature, this
> is code which has has been stable for years. There just aren't any
> other candidates, all the other FS stuff went in with less testing and
> have fewer users now (JFS as example). This is also not code offered
> "right before a freeze" this code has been offered version by version
> for two bleepin' years, has it not? There's no slippery slope, there
> are no other major features which have proven long-term stability. Fell
> free to name them if I'm wrong...

Really XFS code is not the big problem. But the changes in other parts [1]
are really problematic when 2.4 is a *must be stable* .
Is so hard to understand ?

If Marcelo believes that XFS changes, or any other feature or code,
must not be in 2.4.24, is god's word and End Of Thread.

Christoph Hellwig is reviewing the XFS code, and we will see ...


[1] http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-xfs&m=107025984901582&w=2


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 79+ messages in thread

* Re: XFS for 2.4
  2003-12-03 22:07     ` grundig
@ 2003-12-03 22:48       ` bill davidsen
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 79+ messages in thread
From: bill davidsen @ 2003-12-03 22:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: linux-kernel

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2844 bytes --]

In article <20031203230716.247fa67d.grundig@teleline.es>,
grundig@teleline.es <grundig@teleline.es> wrote:
| El 3 Dec 2003 20:44:15 GMT davidsen@tmr.com (bill davidsen) escribió:
| 
| > 
| > Linus accepted it for 2.6, does it need to be blessed by the Pope, or what?
| 
| Linus accepted _many_ things in 2.6 ;)

That's a good thing! And there's a start at being able to disable more
thing for embedded use, which is also a good thing.
| 
| > Now that is bullshit and you know it! This is not a pet feature, this
| > is code which has has been stable for years. There just aren't any
| > other candidates, all the other FS stuff went in with less testing and
| > have fewer users now (JFS as example). This is also not code offered
| 
| Not only Fs's, the entire vm got replaced and the fact that was made
| doesn't mean it was right.

I just don't buy the implication that that this would lead to other
major things coming in, there aren't any I can think of with the track
record of XFS. And it's not coming in just before the freeze, it's been
trying to come in for several years.
| 
| AFAICT, Marcelo isn't taking any decision that would unstabilize the stable
| tree. I'm happy with that. He isn't taking other things which are _far_
| more importante for people, ALSA for example (drivers that you can just
| disable. And it doesn't touch VFS code) and _nobody_ cares abouth
that.

Well I sure don't care about ALSA, but I'm not a gamer and a few decades
of competitive target shooting, even with ear protection, have reduced
my audio needs to the point that the cars which are supported work for
me, my cat can listen in better fidelity on his Paw Pilot if he wants to.
| 
| (Personally I don't think Marcelo would refuse XFS if it wouldn't touch
| the VFS code. The fact that some people think Marcelo is refusing it because
| he doesn't likes the code is stupid - he made clear that the problem
| is the VFS related part)
| 
| Hopefully hch will review it, he will agree that it's
| right, or he will find bugs that nobody has triggered with the xfs patches,
| and xfs will be merged and all this fscking flame will stop

If there were show stopper technical issues, they were there years ago,
and the answer should have been NO then instead of "not in this
relese." After all this I can see that no one wants to stick their neck
out and bless something which the maintainer doesn't want; if there is a
problem the whining would never end.

I guess it's perception, it looks as if XFS got passed over by newer
and less tested FSs, it feels to some people as if the XFS group was
led to believe that if they worked long and hard enough it would be
accepted, and that leads to complaints.

People will get over it.
-- 
bill davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com>
  CTO, TMR Associates, Inc
Doing interesting things with little computers since 1979.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 79+ messages in thread

* Re: XFS for 2.4
  2003-12-03 20:44   ` bill davidsen
  2003-12-03 21:06     ` Marcelo Tosatti
@ 2003-12-03 22:07     ` grundig
  2003-12-03 22:48       ` bill davidsen
  1 sibling, 1 reply; 79+ messages in thread
From: grundig @ 2003-12-03 22:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: bill davidsen; +Cc: linux-kernel

El 3 Dec 2003 20:44:15 GMT davidsen@tmr.com (bill davidsen) escribió:

> 
> Linus accepted it for 2.6, does it need to be blessed by the Pope, or what?

Linus accepted _many_ things in 2.6 ;)


> Now that is bullshit and you know it! This is not a pet feature, this
> is code which has has been stable for years. There just aren't any
> other candidates, all the other FS stuff went in with less testing and
> have fewer users now (JFS as example). This is also not code offered

Not only Fs's, the entire vm got replaced and the fact that was made
doesn't mean it was right.

AFAICT, Marcelo isn't taking any decision that would unstabilize the stable
tree. I'm happy with that. He isn't taking other things which are _far_
more importante for people, ALSA for example (drivers that you can just
disable. And it doesn't touch VFS code) and _nobody_ cares abouth that.

(Personally I don't think Marcelo would refuse XFS if it wouldn't touch
the VFS code. The fact that some people think Marcelo is refusing it because
he doesn't likes the code is stupid - he made clear that the problem
is the VFS related part)

Hopefully hch will review it, he will agree that it's
right, or he will find bugs that nobody has triggered with the xfs patches,
and xfs will be merged and all this fscking flame will stop

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 79+ messages in thread

* Re: XFS for 2.4
  2003-12-03 20:44   ` bill davidsen
@ 2003-12-03 21:06     ` Marcelo Tosatti
  2003-12-03 22:07     ` grundig
  1 sibling, 0 replies; 79+ messages in thread
From: Marcelo Tosatti @ 2003-12-03 21:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: bill davidsen; +Cc: linux-kernel



On 3 Dec 2003, bill davidsen wrote:

> is code which has has been stable for years. There just aren't any
> other candidates, all the other FS stuff went in with less testing and
> have fewer users now (JFS as example). This is also not code offered
> "right before a freeze" this code has been offered version by version
> for two bleepin' years, has it not? There's no slippery slope, there
> are no other major features which have proven long-term stability. Fell
> free to name them if I'm wrong...
> 
> Marcelo admits he doesn't like the coding style, he has the right to
> keep out anything he doesn't like, but let's not invent other reasons.
> It's his call and he made it. It's a pity he didn't make the call
> earlier and save people the effort, though.

Actually my personal opinion should not matter that much in this case. 

But anyway, Christoph Hellwig is reviewing the XFS patches for inclusion.



^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 79+ messages in thread

* Re: XFS for 2.4
  2003-12-02 18:20     ` Larry McVoy
  2003-12-02 18:23       ` Christoph Hellwig
@ 2003-12-03 20:51       ` bill davidsen
  1 sibling, 0 replies; 79+ messages in thread
From: bill davidsen @ 2003-12-03 20:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: linux-kernel

In article <20031202182037.GD17045@work.bitmover.com>,
Larry McVoy  <lm@bitmover.com> wrote:

| This is a process.  The process is supposed to screen out bad change.
| Maybe XFS got into 2.5/2.6 inspite of the process rather than because
| of it.  Maybe not.  Whatever the answer is, it's perfectly reasonable
| for the maintainer of the 2.4 tree to want someone he trusts to step
| forward and say "yeah, it's fine".  The fact that other VFS people
| aren't jumping up and down and saying this should go in is troublesome.
| If I were Marcelo the more the XFS people push without visible backing
| from someone with a clear vision of the VFS layer the more I'd push back.
| 
| Don't get me wrong, I have not looked at or used XFS in years.  I have
| no opinion about it at this point.  But I do have an opinion about process
| and what is going on here, in my opinion, violates the Linux development
| process.  Patches shouldn't go in just because you want them in, they go
| in because the maintainer chooses to bless them or someone he trusts chooses
| to bless them.

It has been my experience that a few hundred normal users actually
running code without problems is a LOT more reliable predictor of
stable operation than any one person reading the code and saying it
looks good. Users check out the exception handling paths better ;-)

-- 
bill davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com>
  CTO, TMR Associates, Inc
Doing interesting things with little computers since 1979.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 79+ messages in thread

* Re: XFS for 2.4
  2003-12-02 18:02 ` Larry McVoy
  2003-12-02 18:11   ` Christoph Hellwig
@ 2003-12-03 20:44   ` bill davidsen
  2003-12-03 21:06     ` Marcelo Tosatti
  2003-12-03 22:07     ` grundig
  1 sibling, 2 replies; 79+ messages in thread
From: bill davidsen @ 2003-12-03 20:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: linux-kernel

In article <20031202180251.GB17045@work.bitmover.com>,
Larry McVoy  <lm@bitmover.com> wrote:
| On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 12:45:38PM -0500, Murthy Kambhampaty wrote:
| > If you can't come up with something more concrete than "I don't like your
| > coding style" and "I'm not sure your patch won't break something", it seems
| > only fair you take the XFS patches.
| 
| Not your call, it's Marcelo's call.  And I and he have both suggested
| that the way to get XFS in is to have someone with some clout in the file
| system area agree that it is fine.  It's a perfectly reasonable request
| and the longer it goes unanswered the less likely it is that XFS will get
| integrated.  The fact that $XFS_USER wants it in is $XFS_USER's problem.
| $VFS_MAINTAINER needs to say "hey, this looks good, what's the fuss about?"
| and I suspect that Marcelo would be more interested.

Linus accepted it for 2.6, does it need to be blessed by the Pope, or what?
| 
| It is not, however, any more my call to make than it is your call to make.
| We're not doing Marcelo's job.
| 
| It is also not unreasonable to reject a set of changes right before
| freezing 2.4.  2.4 is supposed to be dead.  Add XFS and what's next?
| Who's pet feature needs to go in?

Now that is bullshit and you know it! This is not a pet feature, this
is code which has has been stable for years. There just aren't any
other candidates, all the other FS stuff went in with less testing and
have fewer users now (JFS as example). This is also not code offered
"right before a freeze" this code has been offered version by version
for two bleepin' years, has it not? There's no slippery slope, there
are no other major features which have proven long-term stability. Fell
free to name them if I'm wrong...

Marcelo admits he doesn't like the coding style, he has the right to
keep out anything he doesn't like, but let's not invent other reasons.
It's his call and he made it. It's a pity he didn't make the call
earlier and save people the effort, though.
-- 
bill davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com>
  CTO, TMR Associates, Inc
Doing interesting things with little computers since 1979.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 79+ messages in thread

* Re: XFS for 2.4
  2003-12-03  0:13     ` Eric Sandall
@ 2003-12-03 20:12       ` bill davidsen
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 79+ messages in thread
From: bill davidsen @ 2003-12-03 20:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: linux-kernel

In article <1070410409.3fcd2aa9c0d42@horde.sandall.us>,
Eric Sandall  <eric@sandall.us> wrote:
| Quoting Tomas Szepe <szepe@pinerecords.com>:
| > On Dec-02 2003, Tue, 16:01 -0200
| > Marcelo Tosatti <marcelo.tosatti@cyclades.com> wrote:
| > 
| > 
| > > Its too late for it to be included in 2.4. Use 2.6 or a modified 2.4 tree.
| > 
| > 
| > A: Looking good, come back later, though.
| > B: Ok.
| > A: Come back later.
| > B: Ok.
| > A: Come back later.
| > B: Ok.
| > A: Come back later.
| > B: Ok.
| > A: Sorry, you're too late.
| > B: W--What?
| > A: You heard me.  (Also I don't like your shoes.)
| > 
| > 
| > (Sounds a bit like Monty Python to me, can't help it.)
| 
| You know, that's what I've been thinking this whole time. Almost sounds like
| someone has a grudge against XFS (or something/someone related to XFS).
| 
| Just my non-technical opinion.

You mean like someone just doesn't like the style of the code?
-- 
bill davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com>
  CTO, TMR Associates, Inc
Doing interesting things with little computers since 1979.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 79+ messages in thread

* Re: XFS for 2.4
  2003-12-02 17:59 ` Jeff Garzik
@ 2003-12-03 20:10   ` bill davidsen
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 79+ messages in thread
From: bill davidsen @ 2003-12-03 20:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: linux-kernel

In article <20031202175957.GA1990@gtf.org>,
Jeff Garzik  <jgarzik@pobox.com> wrote:

| It's _very_ wise to hold off on a patch if
| (a) the code is difficult to read, and therefore difficult to review and
|     fix (read: style)
| (b) the maintainer is not assured of patch reliability (read: "I'm not
|     sure the patch won't break things")
| 
| Both (a) and (b) are vaild concerns for long term maintenance costs.
| 
| Particularly (b).  If Marcelo is not assured of patch reliability, then
| he absolutely --should not-- merge XFS into 2.4.  That's just the way
| the system works.  And it's a good system.

Given that hundreds of people have used it for several years, I find it
hard to believe that there are hidden bugs both so subtle that they
have not been seen and so bad that they cause major problems. I find "I
don't like the coding style" far easier to believe.

As you say, that's the way the system works, guess the patch will
continue, because it's more reliable than 2.6 at the moment.
-- 
bill davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com>
  CTO, TMR Associates, Inc
Doing interesting things with little computers since 1979.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 79+ messages in thread

* Re: XFS for 2.4
  2003-12-02 19:10   ` Tomas Szepe
@ 2003-12-03  0:13     ` Eric Sandall
  2003-12-03 20:12       ` bill davidsen
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 79+ messages in thread
From: Eric Sandall @ 2003-12-03  0:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: linux-kernel

Quoting Tomas Szepe <szepe@pinerecords.com>:
> On Dec-02 2003, Tue, 16:01 -0200
> Marcelo Tosatti <marcelo.tosatti@cyclades.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> > Its too late for it to be included in 2.4. Use 2.6 or a modified 2.4 tree.
> 
> 
> A: Looking good, come back later, though.
> B: Ok.
> A: Come back later.
> B: Ok.
> A: Come back later.
> B: Ok.
> A: Come back later.
> B: Ok.
> A: Sorry, you're too late.
> B: W--What?
> A: You heard me.  (Also I don't like your shoes.)
> 
> 
> (Sounds a bit like Monty Python to me, can't help it.)

You know, that's what I've been thinking this whole time. Almost sounds like
someone has a grudge against XFS (or something/someone related to XFS).

Just my non-technical opinion.

-sandalle

-- 
PGP Key Fingerprint:  FCFF 26A1 BE21 08F4 BB91  FAED 1D7B 7D74 A8EF DD61
http://search.keyserver.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xA8EFDD61

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GCS/E/IT$ d-- s++:+>: a-- C++(+++) BL++++VIS>$ P+(++) L+++ E-(---) W++ N+@ o?
K? w++++>-- O M-@ V-- PS+(+++) PE(-) Y++(+) PGP++(+) t+() 5++ X(+) R+(++)
tv(--)b++(+++) DI+@ D++(+++) G>+++ e>+++ h---(++) r++ y+
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

Eric Sandall                     |  Source Mage GNU/Linux Developer
eric@sandall.us                  |  http://www.sourcemage.org/
http://eric.sandall.us/          |  SysAdmin @ Inst. Shock Physics @ WSU
http://counter.li.org/  #196285  |  http://www.shock.wsu.edu/

----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 79+ messages in thread

* Re: XFS for 2.4
  2003-12-02 18:23       ` Christoph Hellwig
  2003-12-02 18:27         ` Christoph Hellwig
@ 2003-12-02 20:11         ` viro
  1 sibling, 0 replies; 79+ messages in thread
From: viro @ 2003-12-02 20:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Christoph Hellwig, Larry McVoy, Murthy Kambhampaty,
	'Marcelo Tosatti',
	Russell Cattelan, Nathan Scott, linux-kernel, linux-xfs,
	Andrew Morton

On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 06:23:46PM +0000, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 10:20:37AM -0800, Larry McVoy wrote:
> > So what's wrong with asking $VFS_MAINTAINER to refresh Marcelo's memory
> > about that?
> 
> There is no such thing as a VFS maintainer.  At least Al doesn't want
> to be in that position and I guess no one else would qualify (maybe
> akpm)

Generally I don't mind doing that kind of work.  *However*, in case of
XFS I'm very deliberately Not Touching That(tm).  Reason: I'm deeply
prejudiced against that codebase and (long-standing) situation with
its evolution.  IOW, I'm not the right guy to ask for comments.

<rant type=tired>
XFS codebase is bloated by attempt to imitate VFS interface of inferior
operating system (IRIX) and by demand to keep the common codebase between
Linux and IRIX versions, IRIX one being the master.  And that's not going
to change.  Moreover, locking in it is such that... well, I would not
recommend Larry to look at it - it's a fscking mess that is, AFAICS, long
past the point where maintainers had lost any control over it.  Basically,
all it demonstrates is that with sufficient thrust pigs fly^W^Wanything
can be debugged to the point where common codepaths almost never break.  
</rant>

I'm not touching that animal.  I would trust hch or akpm opinion on it,
but that's it - I know that they have enough clue to do it right.  Aside
of that, count me out whenever XFS is concerned.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 79+ messages in thread

* Re: XFS for 2.4
  2003-12-02 19:12           ` Marcelo Tosatti
@ 2003-12-02 20:10             ` Nathan Scott
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 79+ messages in thread
From: Nathan Scott @ 2003-12-02 20:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Marcelo Tosatti; +Cc: linux-kernel, linux-xfs

On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 05:12:53PM -0200, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> 
> Ok, Christoph agreed to review the changes. He has a clue about VFS.
> 
> If he is OK with them, I'll merge the generic XFS changes.
> 

Thanks Marcelo.  If anything needs clarifying just let me know,
or if you have specific requests for XFS changes (provided they
don't compromise "super-maintenance mode" of course).  Christoph
is also very familiar with XFS now, he might be willing to help
out reviewing that too.

cheers.

ps: thanks to everyone who chimed in with a kind word for XFS!
(group hug?)

-- 
Nathan

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 79+ messages in thread

* Re: XFS for 2.4
  2003-12-02 18:27         ` Christoph Hellwig
@ 2003-12-02 19:12           ` Marcelo Tosatti
  2003-12-02 20:10             ` Nathan Scott
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 79+ messages in thread
From: Marcelo Tosatti @ 2003-12-02 19:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Christoph Hellwig
  Cc: Larry McVoy, Murthy Kambhampaty, 'Marcelo Tosatti',
	Russell Cattelan, Nathan Scott, linux-kernel, linux-xfs,
	Andrew Morton



On Tue, 2 Dec 2003, Christoph Hellwig wrote:

> On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 06:23:46PM +0000, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 10:20:37AM -0800, Larry McVoy wrote:
> > > So what's wrong with asking $VFS_MAINTAINER to refresh Marcelo's memory
> > > about that?
> > 
> > There is no such thing as a VFS maintainer.  At least Al doesn't want
> > to be in that position and I guess no one else would qualify (maybe
> > akpm)
> 
> And akpm queued up most of these patches in -mm and revieved them
> before they went into 2.5, but he is (fortunately for him :))  on
> vacation so you shouldn't expect any respone from him here.

Ok, Christoph agreed to review the changes. He has a clue about VFS.

If he is OK with them, I'll merge the generic XFS changes.




^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 79+ messages in thread

* Re: XFS for 2.4
  2003-12-02 18:01 ` Marcelo Tosatti
@ 2003-12-02 19:10   ` Tomas Szepe
  2003-12-03  0:13     ` Eric Sandall
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 79+ messages in thread
From: Tomas Szepe @ 2003-12-02 19:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Marcelo Tosatti
  Cc: Murthy Kambhampaty, Russell Cattelan, Nathan Scott, linux-kernel,
	Andrew Morton

On Dec-02 2003, Tue, 16:01 -0200
Marcelo Tosatti <marcelo.tosatti@cyclades.com> wrote:


> Its too late for it to be included in 2.4. Use 2.6 or a modified 2.4 tree.


A: Looking good, come back later, though.
B: Ok.
A: Come back later.
B: Ok.
A: Come back later.
B: Ok.
A: Come back later.
B: Ok.
A: Sorry, you're too late.
B: W--What?
A: You heard me.  (Also I don't like your shoes.)


(Sounds a bit like Monty Python to me, can't help it.)

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 79+ messages in thread

* RE: XFS for 2.4
@ 2003-12-02 18:34 Murthy Kambhampaty
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 79+ messages in thread
From: Murthy Kambhampaty @ 2003-12-02 18:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: 'Jeff Garzik', Murthy Kambhampaty
  Cc: 'Marcelo Tosatti',
	Russell Cattelan, Nathan Scott, linux-kernel, linux-xfs,
	Andrew Morton

On Tuesday, December 02, 2003 1:00 PM, Jeff Garzik
[mailto:jgarzik@pobox.com] wrote:

> On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 12:45:38PM -0500, Murthy Kambhampaty wrote:
> > i) Would the linux 2.4 kernel maintainer please stop 
> trolling the XFS
> > mailing list.
> 
> Ok, we'll avoid discussing a major point in XFS's life -- potentially
> being merged into 2.4 -- on XFS list.  Makes sense.

I don't see what "discussion" is promoted by Marcelo' comment at this stage
in the game that he doesn't like the style of the XFS code, and hasn't for a
while, without any constructive examples of what he'd like changed. I'm not
sure how you got the impression that my point was that Marcelo shouldn't
post his decision not to include XFS in 2.4 to the kernel? Sorry.


> 
> 
> > iii) The 2.4 series kernel is the here and now, regardless 
> of how near we
> > all hope/project the 2.6 kernel to be (has Andrew Morton 
> even taken it over
> > from Linus?). Pushing 2.6 on users, and unjustifiably 
> blocking the adoption
> > of advanced features into the current linux kernel is 
> pretty absurd. XFS has
> 
> This is bogus logic.
> 
> Nobody is forcing 2.6 on anyone.  People who wish to use XFS in 2.4
> _can do so today_...  without any merging from Marcelo.
> 
> Merging is nothing more than moving a patch from one place to another.

One of the reasons Marcelo gives for not including XFS in 2.4 is that 2.6 is
nearly here and it includes XFS (feel free to review his posts on the
subject). My point is that that is bogus logic. Not to put too fine a point
on it, but moving a patch from one place to another is the kernel
maintainer's job. 


> 
> 
> > If you can't come up with something more concrete than "I 
> don't like your
> > coding style" and "I'm not sure your patch won't break 
> something", it seems
> > only fair you take the XFS patches.
> 
> This is bogus logic.
> 
> It's _very_ wise to hold off on a patch if
> (a) the code is difficult to read, and therefore difficult to 
> review and
>     fix (read: style)
> (b) the maintainer is not assured of patch reliability (read: "I'm not
>     sure the patch won't break things")
> 
> Both (a) and (b) are vaild concerns for long term maintenance costs.
> 
> Particularly (b).  If Marcelo is not assured of patch 
> reliability, then
> he absolutely --should not-- merge XFS into 2.4.  That's just the way
> the system works.  And it's a good system.

I agree with the logic you present here, and which Larry McVoy similar
comments. My point is that XFS has gone through this mill (and Christoph
Hellwig's opinion counts infinitely more than mine on this question). The
suggestion that "the maintainer is not assured of patch reliability" with
respect to XFS seems cooked-up. 

In the final analysis, if what it takes is for a filesystem maintainer to
jump up and down screaming for XFS's inclusion, then I'm no help ...

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 79+ messages in thread

* Re: XFS for 2.4
  2003-12-02 18:23       ` Christoph Hellwig
@ 2003-12-02 18:27         ` Christoph Hellwig
  2003-12-02 19:12           ` Marcelo Tosatti
  2003-12-02 20:11         ` viro
  1 sibling, 1 reply; 79+ messages in thread
From: Christoph Hellwig @ 2003-12-02 18:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Larry McVoy, Murthy Kambhampaty, 'Marcelo Tosatti',
	Russell Cattelan, Nathan Scott, linux-kernel, linux-xfs,
	Andrew Morton

On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 06:23:46PM +0000, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 10:20:37AM -0800, Larry McVoy wrote:
> > So what's wrong with asking $VFS_MAINTAINER to refresh Marcelo's memory
> > about that?
> 
> There is no such thing as a VFS maintainer.  At least Al doesn't want
> to be in that position and I guess no one else would qualify (maybe
> akpm)

And akpm queued up most of these patches in -mm and revieved them
before they went into 2.5, but he is (fortunately for him :))  on
vacation so you shouldn't expect any respone from him here.


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 79+ messages in thread

* Re: XFS for 2.4
  2003-12-02 18:20     ` Larry McVoy
@ 2003-12-02 18:23       ` Christoph Hellwig
  2003-12-02 18:27         ` Christoph Hellwig
  2003-12-02 20:11         ` viro
  2003-12-03 20:51       ` bill davidsen
  1 sibling, 2 replies; 79+ messages in thread
From: Christoph Hellwig @ 2003-12-02 18:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Larry McVoy, Murthy Kambhampaty, 'Marcelo Tosatti',
	Russell Cattelan, Nathan Scott, linux-kernel, linux-xfs,
	Andrew Morton

On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 10:20:37AM -0800, Larry McVoy wrote:
> So what's wrong with asking $VFS_MAINTAINER to refresh Marcelo's memory
> about that?

There is no such thing as a VFS maintainer.  At least Al doesn't want
to be in that position and I guess no one else would qualify (maybe
akpm)


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 79+ messages in thread

* Re: XFS for 2.4
  2003-12-02 18:11   ` Christoph Hellwig
       [not found]     ` <20031202181146.A27567@adic.com>
@ 2003-12-02 18:20     ` Larry McVoy
  2003-12-02 18:23       ` Christoph Hellwig
  2003-12-03 20:51       ` bill davidsen
  1 sibling, 2 replies; 79+ messages in thread
From: Larry McVoy @ 2003-12-02 18:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Christoph Hellwig, Murthy Kambhampaty, 'Marcelo Tosatti',
	Russell Cattelan, Nathan Scott, linux-kernel, linux-xfs,
	Andrew Morton

On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 06:11:46PM +0000, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 10:02:51AM -0800, Larry McVoy wrote:
> > Not your call, it's Marcelo's call.  And I and he have both suggested
> > that the way to get XFS in is to have someone with some clout in the file
> > system area agree that it is fine.  It's a perfectly reasonable request
> > and the longer it goes unanswered the less likely it is that XFS will get
> > integrated.  The fact that $XFS_USER wants it in is $XFS_USER's problem.
> > $VFS_MAINTAINER needs to say "hey, this looks good, what's the fuss about?"
> > and I suspect that Marcelo would be more interested.
> 
> I think you're missing the point.  The patches have been review many
> times, they've been posted to lkml many time with the request for comment
> and they've been merged into 2.5 in almost exactly that form. 

So what's wrong with asking $VFS_MAINTAINER to refresh Marcelo's memory
about that?

This is a process.  The process is supposed to screen out bad change.
Maybe XFS got into 2.5/2.6 inspite of the process rather than because
of it.  Maybe not.  Whatever the answer is, it's perfectly reasonable
for the maintainer of the 2.4 tree to want someone he trusts to step
forward and say "yeah, it's fine".  The fact that other VFS people
aren't jumping up and down and saying this should go in is troublesome.
If I were Marcelo the more the XFS people push without visible backing
from someone with a clear vision of the VFS layer the more I'd push back.

Don't get me wrong, I have not looked at or used XFS in years.  I have
no opinion about it at this point.  But I do have an opinion about process
and what is going on here, in my opinion, violates the Linux development
process.  Patches shouldn't go in just because you want them in, they go
in because the maintainer chooses to bless them or someone he trusts chooses
to bless them.
-- 
---
Larry McVoy              lm at bitmover.com          http://www.bitmover.com/lm

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 79+ messages in thread

* Re: XFS for 2.4
       [not found]     ` <20031202181146.A27567@adic.com>
@ 2003-12-02 18:19       ` Steve Lord
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 79+ messages in thread
From: Steve Lord @ 2003-12-02 18:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Christoph Hellwig
  Cc: Larry McVoy, Murthy Kambhampaty, 'Marcelo Tosatti',
	Russell Cattelan, Nathan Scott, linux-kernel, linux-xfs,
	Andrew Morton

Christoph Hellwig wrote:

>On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 10:02:51AM -0800, Larry McVoy wrote:
>  
>
>>Not your call, it's Marcelo's call.  And I and he have both suggested
>>that the way to get XFS in is to have someone with some clout in the file
>>system area agree that it is fine.  It's a perfectly reasonable request
>>and the longer it goes unanswered the less likely it is that XFS will get
>>integrated.  The fact that $XFS_USER wants it in is $XFS_USER's problem.
>>$VFS_MAINTAINER needs to say "hey, this looks good, what's the fuss about?"
>>and I suspect that Marcelo would be more interested.
>>    
>>
>
>I think you're missing the point.  The patches have been review many
>times, they've been posted to lkml many time with the request for comment
>and they've been merged into 2.5 in almost exactly that form. 
>
>  
>
>>It is also not unreasonable to reject a set of changes right before
>>freezing 2.4.  2.4 is supposed to be dead.
>>    
>>
>
>That's indeed a point and a very resonable one.  But a few of the patches
>Nathan has in that BK repo have been submited for more than year again
>and again, and Marcelo's reply (for those 10% of the cases that a reply
>existed at all) was something along the lines "let's postpone it after
>the next release".  In my opinion that's not the right attitude from
>a kernel maintainer to someone who wants to contribute major work.
>
>  
>
Thank you Christoph,

Been sitting here reading this and attempting to control my blood pressure.
One thing those folks out there saying this code needs reviewing might
want to consider is that XFS spent several months getting 'Christophed'
in the last year. Those of you who have seen Christoph in action know what
that means ;-).

Steve


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 79+ messages in thread

* Re: XFS for 2.4
  2003-12-02 18:02 ` Larry McVoy
@ 2003-12-02 18:11   ` Christoph Hellwig
       [not found]     ` <20031202181146.A27567@adic.com>
  2003-12-02 18:20     ` Larry McVoy
  2003-12-03 20:44   ` bill davidsen
  1 sibling, 2 replies; 79+ messages in thread
From: Christoph Hellwig @ 2003-12-02 18:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Larry McVoy, Murthy Kambhampaty, 'Marcelo Tosatti',
	Russell Cattelan, Nathan Scott, linux-kernel, linux-xfs,
	Andrew Morton

On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 10:02:51AM -0800, Larry McVoy wrote:
> Not your call, it's Marcelo's call.  And I and he have both suggested
> that the way to get XFS in is to have someone with some clout in the file
> system area agree that it is fine.  It's a perfectly reasonable request
> and the longer it goes unanswered the less likely it is that XFS will get
> integrated.  The fact that $XFS_USER wants it in is $XFS_USER's problem.
> $VFS_MAINTAINER needs to say "hey, this looks good, what's the fuss about?"
> and I suspect that Marcelo would be more interested.

I think you're missing the point.  The patches have been review many
times, they've been posted to lkml many time with the request for comment
and they've been merged into 2.5 in almost exactly that form. 

> It is also not unreasonable to reject a set of changes right before
> freezing 2.4.  2.4 is supposed to be dead.

That's indeed a point and a very resonable one.  But a few of the patches
Nathan has in that BK repo have been submited for more than year again
and again, and Marcelo's reply (for those 10% of the cases that a reply
existed at all) was something along the lines "let's postpone it after
the next release".  In my opinion that's not the right attitude from
a kernel maintainer to someone who wants to contribute major work.


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 79+ messages in thread

* Re: XFS for 2.4
  2003-12-02 17:45 Murthy Kambhampaty
  2003-12-02 17:59 ` Jeff Garzik
  2003-12-02 18:01 ` Marcelo Tosatti
@ 2003-12-02 18:02 ` Larry McVoy
  2003-12-02 18:11   ` Christoph Hellwig
  2003-12-03 20:44   ` bill davidsen
  2 siblings, 2 replies; 79+ messages in thread
From: Larry McVoy @ 2003-12-02 18:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Murthy Kambhampaty
  Cc: 'Marcelo Tosatti',
	Russell Cattelan, Nathan Scott, linux-kernel, linux-xfs,
	Andrew Morton

On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 12:45:38PM -0500, Murthy Kambhampaty wrote:
> If you can't come up with something more concrete than "I don't like your
> coding style" and "I'm not sure your patch won't break something", it seems
> only fair you take the XFS patches.

Not your call, it's Marcelo's call.  And I and he have both suggested
that the way to get XFS in is to have someone with some clout in the file
system area agree that it is fine.  It's a perfectly reasonable request
and the longer it goes unanswered the less likely it is that XFS will get
integrated.  The fact that $XFS_USER wants it in is $XFS_USER's problem.
$VFS_MAINTAINER needs to say "hey, this looks good, what's the fuss about?"
and I suspect that Marcelo would be more interested.

It is not, however, any more my call to make than it is your call to make.
We're not doing Marcelo's job.

It is also not unreasonable to reject a set of changes right before
freezing 2.4.  2.4 is supposed to be dead.  Add XFS and what's next?
Who's pet feature needs to go in?
-- 
---
Larry McVoy              lm at bitmover.com          http://www.bitmover.com/lm

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 79+ messages in thread

* RE: XFS for 2.4
  2003-12-02 17:45 Murthy Kambhampaty
  2003-12-02 17:59 ` Jeff Garzik
@ 2003-12-02 18:01 ` Marcelo Tosatti
  2003-12-02 19:10   ` Tomas Szepe
  2003-12-02 18:02 ` Larry McVoy
  2 siblings, 1 reply; 79+ messages in thread
From: Marcelo Tosatti @ 2003-12-02 18:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Murthy Kambhampaty
  Cc: 'Marcelo Tosatti',
	Russell Cattelan, Nathan Scott, linux-kernel, Andrew Morton



On Tue, 2 Dec 2003, Murthy Kambhampaty wrote:

> On Tuesday, December 02, 2003 10:50 AM, Marcelo Tosatti
> [mailto:marcelo.tosatti@cyclades.com] wrote:
> 
> > > > 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.
> 
> i) Would the linux 2.4 kernel maintainer please stop trolling the XFS
> mailing list.

Sure :) 

> > 
> > The bigger point is that XFS touches generic code and I'm not 
> > sure if that 
> > can break something.
> 
> ii) This was the reason why it took so long to get it into the 2.5 series
> and in the 2.4-ac series, of course, but surely by now it has been shown
> that the changes to the generic code do not "break something". It isn't
> clear what standard is being applied here. Surely its not "the patches had
> better be shown to not break anything else AND Marcelo Tosatti must also
> like the style of the code".

Well theres not much of a standard indeed.  

> > Why it matters so much for you to have XFS in 2.4 ? 
> > 
> 
> iii) The 2.4 series kernel is the here and now, regardless of how near we
> all hope/project the 2.6 kernel to be (has Andrew Morton even taken it over
> from Linus?). Pushing 2.6 on users, and unjustifiably blocking the adoption
> of advanced features into the current linux kernel is pretty absurd. XFS has
> unmatched filesystem features (for example, it uniquely enables filesystem
> level backup of databases even when the database log is on a different
> partition than the data tables
> http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=postgresql-admin&m=106641231828872&w=2).
> 
> If you can't come up with something more concrete than "I don't like your
> coding style" and "I'm not sure your patch won't break something", it seems
> only fair you take the XFS patches.

Using my non-standard and "better not to break anything else" techniques
I decide to not include it.

Its too late for it to be included in 2.4. Use 2.6 or a modified 2.4 tree.




^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 79+ messages in thread

* Re: XFS for 2.4
  2003-12-02 17:45 Murthy Kambhampaty
@ 2003-12-02 17:59 ` Jeff Garzik
  2003-12-03 20:10   ` bill davidsen
  2003-12-02 18:01 ` Marcelo Tosatti
  2003-12-02 18:02 ` Larry McVoy
  2 siblings, 1 reply; 79+ messages in thread
From: Jeff Garzik @ 2003-12-02 17:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Murthy Kambhampaty
  Cc: 'Marcelo Tosatti',
	Russell Cattelan, Nathan Scott, linux-kernel, linux-xfs,
	Andrew Morton

On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 12:45:38PM -0500, Murthy Kambhampaty wrote:
> i) Would the linux 2.4 kernel maintainer please stop trolling the XFS
> mailing list.

Ok, we'll avoid discussing a major point in XFS's life -- potentially
being merged into 2.4 -- on XFS list.  Makes sense.


> iii) The 2.4 series kernel is the here and now, regardless of how near we
> all hope/project the 2.6 kernel to be (has Andrew Morton even taken it over
> from Linus?). Pushing 2.6 on users, and unjustifiably blocking the adoption
> of advanced features into the current linux kernel is pretty absurd. XFS has

This is bogus logic.

Nobody is forcing 2.6 on anyone.  People who wish to use XFS in 2.4
_can do so today_...  without any merging from Marcelo.

Merging is nothing more than moving a patch from one place to another.


> If you can't come up with something more concrete than "I don't like your
> coding style" and "I'm not sure your patch won't break something", it seems
> only fair you take the XFS patches.

This is bogus logic.

It's _very_ wise to hold off on a patch if
(a) the code is difficult to read, and therefore difficult to review and
    fix (read: style)
(b) the maintainer is not assured of patch reliability (read: "I'm not
    sure the patch won't break things")

Both (a) and (b) are vaild concerns for long term maintenance costs.

Particularly (b).  If Marcelo is not assured of patch reliability, then
he absolutely --should not-- merge XFS into 2.4.  That's just the way
the system works.  And it's a good system.

	Jeff




^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 79+ messages in thread

* RE: XFS for 2.4
@ 2003-12-02 17:45 Murthy Kambhampaty
  2003-12-02 17:59 ` Jeff Garzik
                   ` (2 more replies)
  0 siblings, 3 replies; 79+ messages in thread
From: Murthy Kambhampaty @ 2003-12-02 17:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: 'Marcelo Tosatti', Russell Cattelan
  Cc: Nathan Scott, linux-kernel, linux-xfs, Andrew Morton

On Tuesday, December 02, 2003 10:50 AM, Marcelo Tosatti
[mailto:marcelo.tosatti@cyclades.com] wrote:

> > > 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.

i) Would the linux 2.4 kernel maintainer please stop trolling the XFS
mailing list.

> 
> The bigger point is that XFS touches generic code and I'm not 
> sure if that 
> can break something.

ii) This was the reason why it took so long to get it into the 2.5 series
and in the 2.4-ac series, of course, but surely by now it has been shown
that the changes to the generic code do not "break something". It isn't
clear what standard is being applied here. Surely its not "the patches had
better be shown to not break anything else AND Marcelo Tosatti must also
like the style of the code".


> 
> Why it matters so much for you to have XFS in 2.4 ? 
> 

iii) The 2.4 series kernel is the here and now, regardless of how near we
all hope/project the 2.6 kernel to be (has Andrew Morton even taken it over
from Linus?). Pushing 2.6 on users, and unjustifiably blocking the adoption
of advanced features into the current linux kernel is pretty absurd. XFS has
unmatched filesystem features (for example, it uniquely enables filesystem
level backup of databases even when the database log is on a different
partition than the data tables
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=postgresql-admin&m=106641231828872&w=2).

If you can't come up with something more concrete than "I don't like your
coding style" and "I'm not sure your patch won't break something", it seems
only fair you take the XFS patches.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 79+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2003-12-15  7:51 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 79+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2003-12-01  6:20 XFS for 2.4 Nathan Scott
2003-12-01  9:24 ` Jens Axboe
2003-12-01  9:44   ` Stefan Smietanowski
2003-12-01  9:45     ` Jens Axboe
2003-12-01 14:06 ` Marcelo Tosatti
2003-12-01 22:10   ` Nathan Scott
2003-12-01 22:20     ` Larry McVoy
2003-12-02  0:23       ` Nathan Scott
2003-12-02 11:22         ` Marcelo Tosatti
2003-12-02 18:05           ` Austin Gonyou
2003-12-02 19:55           ` Stephan von Krawczynski
2003-12-02 20:05             ` Marcelo Tosatti
2003-12-02 20:16             ` Lawrence Walton
2003-12-03 19:01           ` bill davidsen
2003-12-03 20:45             ` Willy Tarreau
2003-12-03 21:17               ` bill davidsen
2003-12-03 21:48                 ` Joel Becker
2003-12-03 22:17                   ` bill davidsen
2003-12-03 22:08                 ` Ed Sweetman
2003-12-04  5:21                   ` Willy Tarreau
2003-12-04  0:34               ` Clemens Schwaighofer
2003-12-04  5:33                 ` Willy Tarreau
2003-12-04 10:13                   ` Clemens Schwaighofer
2003-12-02 11:18     ` Marcelo Tosatti
2003-12-02 11:48       ` Marcelo Tosatti
2003-12-02 15:34       ` Russell Cattelan
2003-12-02 15:50         ` Marcelo Tosatti
2003-12-02 16:10           ` Darrell Michaud
2003-12-02 16:21             ` Austin Gonyou
2003-12-02 16:28             ` Jeff Garzik
2003-12-02 16:57               ` venom
2003-12-02 17:41               ` Stefan Smietanowski
2003-12-02 18:01           ` Russell Cattelan
2003-12-02 16:13         ` Jeremy Jackson
2003-12-02  0:51   ` Clemens Schwaighofer
2003-12-02  1:26     ` Marcos D. Marado Torres
2003-12-14  1:08   ` 2.4 vs 2.6 Jan Rychter
2003-12-14  1:01     ` Roberto Sanchez
2003-12-14 11:23       ` Måns Rullgård
2003-12-14 18:09         ` Daniel Gryniewicz
2003-12-14  1:53     ` Daniel Gryniewicz
2003-12-14  2:01     ` coderman
2003-12-14 20:23       ` tabris
2003-12-14  7:05     ` Voicu Liviu
2003-12-14 16:01       ` Roberto Sanchez
2003-12-14 17:32         ` Voicu Liviu
2003-12-15  7:23           ` Harry McGregor
2003-12-15  7:51             ` Voicu Liviu
2003-12-14 11:24     ` Frederik Deweerdt
2003-12-01 21:00 ` XFS for 2.4 Dan Yocum
2003-12-01 21:50   ` Bryan Whitehead
2003-12-01 22:01     ` Jeffrey E. Hundstad
2003-12-01 22:13     ` Gerardo Exequiel Pozzi
2003-12-02  2:54     ` Joshua Schmidlkofer
2003-12-02 11:02   ` Maciej Soltysiak
2003-12-02 17:45 Murthy Kambhampaty
2003-12-02 17:59 ` Jeff Garzik
2003-12-03 20:10   ` bill davidsen
2003-12-02 18:01 ` Marcelo Tosatti
2003-12-02 19:10   ` Tomas Szepe
2003-12-03  0:13     ` Eric Sandall
2003-12-03 20:12       ` bill davidsen
2003-12-02 18:02 ` Larry McVoy
2003-12-02 18:11   ` Christoph Hellwig
     [not found]     ` <20031202181146.A27567@adic.com>
2003-12-02 18:19       ` Steve Lord
2003-12-02 18:20     ` Larry McVoy
2003-12-02 18:23       ` Christoph Hellwig
2003-12-02 18:27         ` Christoph Hellwig
2003-12-02 19:12           ` Marcelo Tosatti
2003-12-02 20:10             ` Nathan Scott
2003-12-02 20:11         ` viro
2003-12-03 20:51       ` bill davidsen
2003-12-03 20:44   ` bill davidsen
2003-12-03 21:06     ` Marcelo Tosatti
2003-12-03 22:07     ` grundig
2003-12-03 22:48       ` bill davidsen
2003-12-02 18:34 Murthy Kambhampaty
2003-12-04  1:27 Xose Vazquez Perez
2003-12-04  2:40 ` Bernd Eckenfels

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).