xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: XFS: accounting of reclaimable inodes is incorrect

To: Stefan Priebe - Profihost AG <s.priebe@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: XFS: accounting of reclaimable inodes is incorrect
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2011 10:09:49 -0400
Cc: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <4DEE2C36.8030008@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <4DEE0EA4.9090002@xxxxxxxxxxxx> <20110607115441.GA4653@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4DEE2078.3010102@xxxxxxxxxxxx> <20110607133429.GA9049@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4DEE2C36.8030008@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
On Tue, Jun 07, 2011 at 03:48:38PM +0200, Stefan Priebe - Profihost AG wrote:
> Am 07.06.2011 15:34, schrieb Christoph Hellwig:
> >On Tue, Jun 07, 2011 at 02:58:32PM +0200, Stefan Priebe - Profihost AG wrote:
> >Linux 2.6.32 isn't really something supported by us.  It's not just a
> >very old codebase, but also one where a lot of the XFS code was pretty
> >much in flux.  If you want supported old releases work use one of
> >the commercially supported one like RedHat or SuSE.
> OK so my thought was totally wrong. I thought the longterm stable
> releases will still get bugfixed by SGI or whoever wrote the stuff.
> Sorry for that then. But what is then the idea of a longterm stable?

I have no idea what the idea is, but it's clearly not viable for normal
kernel developers.  Backporting code to age old releases and QAing it is
a major effort, and people generally don't do it unless they are paid
for it.

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