xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: XFS for 2.4

To: Marcelo Tosatti <marcelo.tosatti@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: XFS for 2.4
From: Darrell Michaud <dmichaud@xxxxxxx>
Date: 02 Dec 2003 11:10:43 -0500
Cc: Russell Cattelan <cattelan@xxxxxxx>, Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxx>, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0312021346530.13692-100000@logos.cnet>
Organization:
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0312021346530.13692-100000@logos.cnet>
Sender: linux-xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
As a user it would be very beneficial for me to have XFS support in the
official 2.4 kernel tree. XFS been stable and "2.4 integration-ready"
for a long time, and 2.4 is going to be used in certain environments for
a long time, if only because it's easier to upgrade a 2.4 kernel to a
newer 2.4 kernel than to upgrade to a 2.6 kernel. It seems like an easy
case to make.

I use other filesystems and some funky drivers as well.. and I'm always
very happy to see useful backports show up in the 2.4 tree. Thank you!



On Tue, 2003-12-02 at 10:50, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Dec 2003, Russell Cattelan wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, 2003-12-02 at 05:18, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> > [snip] 
> > > Also I'm not completly sure if the generic changes are fine and I dont
> > > like the XFS code in general.
> > Ahh so the real truth comes out.
> > 
> > 
> > Is there a reason for your sudden dislike of the XFS code?
> 
> I always disliked the XFS code. 
> 
> > or is this just an arbitrary general dislike for unknown or unstated
> > reasons?
> 
> I dont like the style of the code. Thats a personal issue, though, and 
> shouldnt matter.
> 
> The bigger point is that XFS touches generic code and I'm not sure if that 
> can break something.
> 
> Why it matters so much for you to have XFS in 2.4 ? 
> 
-- 
Darrell Michaud <dmichaud@xxxxxxx>


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