On Mon, Jul 10, 2006 at 08:17:11AM +1000, Nathan Scott wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 09, 2006 at 01:56:43PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Sun, Jul 09, 2006 at 10:54:54AM +1000, Nathan Scott wrote:
> > I don't think theres a valid reason to keep such dead code around. If
>
> Its not dead code. I will and have been happily removing dead
> code.
It's 100% dead code in mainline. Please don't push in new code that doesn't
do anything.
> > There seem to be some rather odd things creeping in lately.
>
> Er, such as? And why not point these things out at the time,
> when people are working on it and committing the changes (and
> sending commit mail to xfs@oss), instead of this odd vague
> reference now?
Sorry about the odd reference. I don't really have time to look up
the changes for each TAKE message in cvsweb nevermind especially odd
changes seem to not come with TAKE messages sometimes. So I have to
look at the changes between two linus releases to see changes.
Anyway, the odd changes from 2.6.17 to 2.6.18-rc are:
- replacing PFLAGS_* with even more obsfucation
- the big renaming of the vnode/vfs thingies. I take this as an official
go-ahead that this cruft isn't for irix-compatibility anymore and remove
it. I have a nice patch pending that reduces xfs size big time with
this (unfortunatly needs a nasty rebase now)
- the VN_TRUNC looks interesting. I wish we had a public discussion about
this and could see whether or not to handle it at the VFS level
- adding a new inherit_nodfrg flag that's not actually used anywhere
- addding a VFS_UMOUNT flag that isn't actually used anywhere and shouldn't
exist with Linux's unmount handling
|