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
@ 2003-12-02 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
* 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
@ 2003-12-04  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

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).