On 5/29/13 2:01 PM, Ben Myers wrote:
> Hi Dave,
> On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 09:54:24AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
>> I'd much prefer that we don't have to add code to 3.11 to reject any
>> CRC-enabled filesystem without any feature bits set because we don't
>> support a broken remote attr format that was fixed weeks before 3.10
>> released but was not allowed to be fixed in 3.10. That's just crazy
>> from any release management perspective you care to look at it from.
> So would I.
>> Ben, if the problem is that you can't review all the fixes in a timely
>> manner, then we can fix that. I'm sure that Mark, Eric and Brian can
>> help review the code if this is the sticking point.
> Reviews are always welcome...
But it won't matter for the sake of this argument, sounds like?
> A worse outcome is that I pull in this code and something goes very
> wrong for the thousands of users of 3.10 with existing non-crc XFS
> filesystems. A feature bit and some inconvenience for a few XFS
> developers and testers is a safer choice.
Your concern (rightly) seems to be stability for non-crc users, so:
I'll review these patches with a special eye towards if/how they
affect any non-crc codepaths. If it's wholly contained in crc
code, you can merge them without fear. Sound like a deal?
> xfs mailing list