[Top] [All Lists]

Re: XFS+Tux = patch trouble

To: "Eric Sandeen" <sandeen@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: XFS+Tux = patch trouble
From: "Sean Elble" <S_Elble@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2001 22:05:40 -0500
Cc: "Tux mailing list" <tux-list@xxxxxxxxxx>, "XFS Mailing list" <linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0111061027590.4999-100000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <02bb01c16720$7fd7d470$0a00a8c0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <3BE8A074.8494050A@xxxxxxx>
Reply-to: "Sean Elble" <S_Elble@xxxxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Whoa . . . I didn't realize that the patch was only 48k. But does that
include all the XFS "dependences", like the Page Buffer code, etc.? I would
imagine that it does, but just checking . . .  If that is indeed the case,
why no response from Linus? Maybe each one of the XFS Mailing List members
should "remind" him about what a great file system we have over here. :-)
And if Linus doesn't accept it, try Alan Cox, or any other Linux developer
who often sees his/her changes merged in to the Linus tree . . . with any
luck, maybe Linus will "miss" XFS. There are quite a few changes with XFS,
but they are stable, that's for sure. Hell, considering the level of testing
on recent kernels (2.4.14's loop.c problem, for example), Linux/XFS kernels
are probably _more_ stable than any Linus kernel, especially with the fact
that SGI tests released kernels! Anyway, enough ranting . . . back to work.

Sean P. Elble
Editor, Writer, Co-Webmaster
ReactiveLinux.com (Formerly MaximumLinux.org)

----- Original Message -----
From: "Eric Sandeen" <sandeen@xxxxxxx>
To: "Sean Elble" <S_Elble@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: <mingo@xxxxxxx>; "Keith Owens" <kaos@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; "Tux mailing
list" <tux-list@xxxxxxxxxx>; "XFS Mailing list" <linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2001 9:46 PM
Subject: Re: XFS+Tux = patch trouble

> Just wanted to interject something amidst the talk about huge xfs
> patches... the xfs filesystem code is pretty big, yes, but the core
> xfs-only kernel patch for 2.4.13 is only around 48k.  That includes
> context lines, Makefiles, Configure.help, MAINTAINERS, Changes, and
> other documentation that's really not a change to the kernel.
> Yes, XFS affects the core kernel.  But it's not as much code as the
> conventional wisdom seems to think it is.  :)
> -Eric
> (Plenty of snipping below)
> Sean Elble wrote:
> >
> > The XFS patch is huge,
> > > > Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > this is a pretty big patch even just
> > > counting the core changes.
> > >
> > > Ingo
> --
> Eric Sandeen      XFS for Linux     http://oss.sgi.com/projects/xfs
> sandeen@xxxxxxx   SGI, Inc.

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