xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: XFS for 2.4

To: Marcelo Tosatti <marcelo.tosatti@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: XFS for 2.4
From: Austin Gonyou <austin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2003 12:05:26 -0600
Cc: Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxx>, Larry McVoy <lm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, XFS List <linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0312020919410.13692-100000@xxxxxxxxxx>
Organization: Coremetrics, Inc.
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0312020919410.13692-100000@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: linux-xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
On Tue, 2003-12-02 at 05:22, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> [...]
> My whole point is "2.6 is almost out of the door and its so much
> better".  
> Its much faster, much cleaner. 

I agree with this, even in spite of my earlier arguments. I do like 2.6,
but I think there are some valid points listed recently for 2.4
inclusion. I might just be an end-user, but I do appreciate XFS for what
it is, and have been using it for a while now. It just seems like
natural inclusion at this point almost "just makes sense."


-- 
Austin Gonyou <austin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Coremetrics, Inc.


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