| To: | Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: 2.4.20-18 Red Hat errata kernel with XFS 1.2.0 |
| From: | "Bryan J. Smith" <b.j.smith@xxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Wed, 11 Jun 2003 17:44:36 -0400 (EDT) |
| Cc: | Austin Gonyou <austin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Seth Mos <knuffie@xxxxxxxxx>, Paulo Matos <pjsm@xxxxxxxxxx>, XFS List <linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
| In-reply-to: | <1055367400.11067.143.camel@stout.americas.sgi.com> |
| References: | <4.3.2.7.2.20030610133612.0326eba0@pop.xs4all.nl> <1055366915.1925.55.camel@portageek.digitalroadkill.net> <1055367400.11067.143.camel@stout.americas.sgi.com> |
| Sender: | linux-xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | IMP/PHP IMAP webmail program 2.2.7 |
Quoting Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxx>: > OTOH we are talking about distributing the next release in 2 packages, > an "xfs-ready" kernel, and an xfs-module RPM. That way xfs can > beupdated without a new kernel install, as long as the interface does > not change. > Not sure if we'll get this done, but I've been kicking it around. So what you're saying is that [nearly] all of the core kernel changes are static? That is, other than to accomodate changes by the kernel between versions that affect select XFS added portions? Has this been so since the 1.0 release? Does 2.5/2.6 completely take care of providing these interfaces? -- Bryan J. Smith, E.I. mailto:b.j.smith@xxxxxxxx http://thebs.org CCDA/CCNA CIWSA/MCIWA LPIC2/RHCE MCSA http://thebs.org/certs.pdf ----------------------------------------------------------------- Microsoft(R): The 'Data Longevity is Optional' Company |
| Previous by Date: | Re: 2.4.20-18 Red Hat errata kernel with XFS 1.2.0, Austin Gonyou |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: 2.4.20-18 Red Hat errata kernel with XFS 1.2.0, Bryan J. Smith |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: 2.4.20-18 Red Hat errata kernel with XFS 1.2.0, Eric Sandeen |
| Next by Thread: | Re: 2.4.20-18 Red Hat errata kernel with XFS 1.2.0, Eric Sandeen |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |