xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

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

To: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: A short digression on FOSS (Re: understanding speculative preallocation)
From: Jay Ashworth <jra@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 11:30:02 -0400 (EDT)
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <51F682CC.1080100@xxxxxxxxxxx>
----- Original Message -----
> From: "Eric Sandeen" <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>

> >> From: "Dave Chinner" <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> >> 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.
> >
> > Those aren't kernel versions; those are kernel *package* versions.
> 
> Those are RHEL kernel version numbers, which 100% uniquely identify
> the code contained in those kernels.

So how, Eric, would that help, say, SuSE users -- which the XFS website makes 
special note to point out that there's a specific agreement in place to 
support.  Even SLES users vice openSUSE, though the XFS.org website doesn't 
make that distinction.

I'm sticking with "those are kernel package versions", and I was yelled
at the other day because I was interested in things that weren't "mainline
kernel versions".  RHEL kernels are the *best available example* of "not
a mainline kernel version", so I find these conflicting reports most
conflicting.

> > Kernel versions are w.x.y or w.x.y.z.
> 
> ^Upstream.

"Mainline".  Which was not my choice of term.

Cheers,
-- jra
-- 
Jay R. Ashworth                  Baylink                       jra@xxxxxxxxxxx
Designer                     The Things I Think                       RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates     http://baylink.pitas.com         2000 Land Rover DII
St Petersburg FL USA               #natog                      +1 727 647 1274

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