From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261659AbTLDCk3 (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Dec 2003 21:40:29 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261681AbTLDCk3 (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Dec 2003 21:40:29 -0500 Received: from quechua.inka.de ([193.197.184.2]:21123 "EHLO mail.inka.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261659AbTLDCk2 (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Dec 2003 21:40:28 -0500 From: Bernd Eckenfels To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: XFS for 2.4 Organization: Deban GNU/Linux Homesite In-Reply-To: <3FCE8D7C.4070704@wanadoo.es> X-Newsgroups: ka.lists.linux.kernel User-Agent: tin/1.7.2-20031002 ("Berneray") (UNIX) (Linux/2.6.0-test11 (i686)) Message-Id: Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2003 03:40:13 +0100 X-Scanner: exiscan *1ARjPZ-0005DD-00*rjOhk7Rc3PA* Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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/