Hi Stephen,
Apologies for the delay in replying, I've been away for a bit.
On Fri, Dec 02, 2005 at 09:14:23AM -0500, Stephen Smalley wrote:
> On Fri, 2005-12-02 at 06:23 +1100, Nathan Scott wrote:
> > Well, I mainly want to not cause a huge regression for those
> > people who were using it in the stable kernel series.
> <snip>
> > Hmmm ... if its that simple, then that should have been done
> > for reiserfs and XFS before this change was merged at all,
> > surely? That would've kept the old (albeit not quite correct)
> > behaviour without the regression, and given ample opportunity
> > for the remaining filesystems to get properly fixed up... no?
>
> I don't know whether that would be simple or not (not having looked
> closely at the xfs implementation), but these patches were discussed on
> linux-fsdevel and lived in -mm for a while without such a suggestion
> being made.
> ...
It wasn't clear to me when I initially read those that the
unmodified (but working) filesystems would now be broken.
> I'm open to suggestions, but I'm not getting a consistent message from
> xfs folks, so it is difficult to know how to proceed.
Heh, Christoph wears many hats - here he's wearing both VFS
and XFS hats at once... :)
> I'm also not
> clear on what we can hope to get into 2.6.15 at this point.
Yes, its too late for 2.6.15. I'll cook up a patch to reinstate
the functionality for XFS and make sure its included for 2.6.16.
cheers.
--
Nathan
|