xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Linux 2.5 or now 2.6 targeted

To: SGI XFS Dev List <linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Linux 2.5 or now 2.6 targeted
From: Alan Eldridge <alane@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2001 07:45:20 -0400
In-reply-to: <200110141140.f9EBeJt15227@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; from lord@xxxxxxx on Sun, Oct 14, 2001 at 06:40:19AM -0500
References: <alane@xxxxxxxxxxxx> <200110141140.f9EBeJt15227@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.2.5i
On Sun, Oct 14, 2001 at 06:40:19AM -0500, Steve Lord wrote:
>> A question for the guys at SGI that are working so hard on this beast:
>> With the fundamental differences regarding implementation, in particular the
>> invasiveness of the XFS patches, and the talk now of possibly targeting 2.6
>> rather than 2.5, what's the general take on (1) capitulation to the Linus
>> and AC viewpoint about reducing the invasiveness by taking out some of the
>> code that dupes functionality in the kernel but does it differently and (2)
>> longevity of the XFS project in light of the industry's less than stellar
>> financial condition as a whole?
>
>So where is this discussion going on? Because it is happening in a forum
>I don't see.

Sorry Steve. I wrote this question to the list just a while ago. I got one
response privately which didn't get copied to the list. My reply to that I
copied. And that's all the discussion there's been.

I'm mostly interested in views from you and your fellow XFS kernel hackers.

-- 
Alan Eldridge
from std_disclaimer import *


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