On Tuesday, December 02, 2003 10:50 AM, Marcelo Tosatti
> > > 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.
i) Would the linux 2.4 kernel maintainer please stop trolling the XFS
> The bigger point is that XFS touches generic code and I'm not
> sure if that
> can break something.
ii) This was the reason why it took so long to get it into the 2.5 series
and in the 2.4-ac series, of course, but surely by now it has been shown
that the changes to the generic code do not "break something". It isn't
clear what standard is being applied here. Surely its not "the patches had
better be shown to not break anything else AND Marcelo Tosatti must also
like the style of the code".
> Why it matters so much for you to have XFS in 2.4 ?
iii) The 2.4 series kernel is the here and now, regardless of how near we
all hope/project the 2.6 kernel to be (has Andrew Morton even taken it over
from Linus?). Pushing 2.6 on users, and unjustifiably blocking the adoption
of advanced features into the current linux kernel is pretty absurd. XFS has
unmatched filesystem features (for example, it uniquely enables filesystem
level backup of databases even when the database log is on a different
partition than the data tables
If you can't come up with something more concrete than "I don't like your
coding style" and "I'm not sure your patch won't break something", it seems
only fair you take the XFS patches.