From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S264311AbTLBS3H (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Dec 2003 13:29:07 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S264312AbTLBS3H (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Dec 2003 13:29:07 -0500 Received: from intra.cyclades.com ([64.186.161.6]:53892 "EHLO intra.cyclades.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S264311AbTLBS26 (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Dec 2003 13:28:58 -0500 Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 16:01:59 -0200 (BRST) From: Marcelo Tosatti X-X-Sender: marcelo@logos.cnet To: Murthy Kambhampaty Cc: "'Marcelo Tosatti'" , Russell Cattelan , Nathan Scott , , Andrew Morton Subject: RE: XFS for 2.4 In-Reply-To: <2D92FEBFD3BE1346A6C397223A8DD3FC0924C8@THOR.goeci.com> 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, 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.