| To: | "Bryan J. Smith" <b.j.smith@xxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: 2.4.20-18 Red Hat errata kernel with XFS 1.2.0 |
| From: | Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxx> |
| Date: | 11 Jun 2003 16:50:50 -0500 |
| Cc: | Austin Gonyou <austin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Seth Mos <knuffie@xxxxxxxxx>, Paulo Matos <pjsm@xxxxxxxxxx>, XFS List <linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
| In-reply-to: | <1055367876.3ee7a2c43f7ef@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Organization: | |
| References: | <4.3.2.7.2.20030610133612.0326eba0@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1055366915.1925.55.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1055367400.11067.143.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1055367876.3ee7a2c43f7ef@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | linux-xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
On Wed, 2003-06-11 at 16:44, Bryan J. Smith wrote: > 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? for a given kernel rev, the xfs<->kernel interface has stabilized quite a lot, yes. Not to say it will never change, of course. > Has this been so since the 1.0 release? ahh... nope. :) > Does 2.5/2.6 completely take care of providing these interfaces? XFS is in 2.5, so it's mostly a moot point. It's possible that from time to time, updated XFS in CVS will require a kernel change that is not in Linus' tree, of course. Is that what you're asking? -Eric -- Eric Sandeen XFS for Linux http://oss.sgi.com/projects/xfs sandeen@xxxxxxx SGI, Inc. 651-683-3102 |
| Previous by Date: | Re: 2.4.20-18 Red Hat errata kernel with XFS 1.2.0, Bryan J. Smith |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: 2.4.20-18 Red Hat errata kernel with XFS 1.2.0, Eric Sandeen |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: 2.4.20-18 Red Hat errata kernel with XFS 1.2.0, Bryan J. Smith |
| Next by Thread: | Re: 2.4.20-18 Red Hat errata kernel with XFS 1.2.0, Paulo Matos |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |