From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261928AbTLBLvh (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Dec 2003 06:51:37 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261947AbTLBLvh (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Dec 2003 06:51:37 -0500 Received: from intra.cyclades.com ([64.186.161.6]:2223 "EHLO intra.cyclades.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261928AbTLBLve (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Dec 2003 06:51:34 -0500 Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 09:48:34 -0200 (BRST) From: Marcelo Tosatti X-X-Sender: marcelo@logos.cnet To: Marcelo Tosatti Cc: Nathan Scott , , , Andrew Morton Subject: Re: XFS for 2.4 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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