[Top] [All Lists]

Re: XFS to main kernel source

To: "Steve Wolfe" <nw@xxxxxxxxx>, <linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: XFS to main kernel source
From: Seth Mos <knuffie@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2001 20:53:29 +0200
In-reply-to: <003601c14200$77893b00$50824e40@xxxxxxxxxx>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0109201937220.21430-100000@helka>
Sender: owner-linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
At 12:17 20-9-2001 -0600, Steve Wolfe wrote:
> When will be the XFS patch integrated to main tree?



>> I'm really fed up with trying to get linux-2.4.9 + acXX or preXX + xfs
>> together.


Worrysome combination.

>>> I would hold off on 2.4.10 - there have been some major kernel changes
>>> which will affect XFS, it may take a while to shake out the bugs. The
>>> version appears to be running OK. I would see if you get any other

  I'd just like to add, for the record, that while I really do love XFS,
because of things like the above statement from Steve Lord, I really can't
use it on my production machines until it is tied into the regular kernel

It might be a bit extreme since you might need to patch your kernel to make some hardware work.

Intergrating XFS in the mainstream kernel won't make the patching process any easier. XFS interacts with the VM and will thus always require work. 2.5 would make it easier since it looks like it will be a lot friendlier for intergrating XFS into it.

In the mean time I am happily running XFS on my production servers with good results and have had no (knock on wood) XFS related problems in the past half year.

tree.  I imagine that you're already doing everything that you can to get
it integrated, I'm not griping, just giving (hopefully) constructive

They are working it. It needs time. Rome was not built in a day. We are stil working on the little shack in the back :-)


Every program has two purposes one for which
it was written and another for which it wasn't
I use the last kind.

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>