xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: A short digression on FOSS (Re: understanding speculative preallocat

To: Keith Keller <kkeller@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: A short digression on FOSS (Re: understanding speculative preallocation)
From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2013 23:32:41 -0500
Cc: "linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx" <linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivered-to: linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <2m4hcax0nv.ln2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <20130729000247.GA13468@dastard> <32553786.2492.1375056392388.JavaMail.root@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20130729024105.GC13468@dastard> <2m4hcax0nv.ln2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
On Jul 28, 2013, at 10:38 PM, Keith Keller <kkeller@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
wrote:

> On 2013-07-29, Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> 
>> The "version" of XFS that you are running is that of the
>> kernel you are running. i.e. 2.6.32-279.x.y or 2.6.32-358.x.y.
> 
> Can't you fairly easily replace a kernel module with a different version
> using something like DKMS?  I feel like I did that with xfs a few months
> ago.  If accurate, then it's theoretically possible to run a different
> version of the xfs kernel module than the running kernel version.  (And
> if I'm misremembering then there really is no spoon!)
> 
In general, no.  There are a lot of moving parts that interface with the 
filesystem - one does not simply drop fs/xfs from, say, kernel 3.2 into a 
2.6.32 kernel.

Ninjas like Dave can do it for an enterprise distro kernel if it benefits 
customers, but the back porting and testing is very much a nontrivial task.

-Eric


> --keith
> 
> -- 
> kkeller@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> xfs mailing list
> xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
> http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
> 

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