Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list linux-xfs); Tue, 02 Dec 2003 07:39:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from lips.borg.umn.edu (lips.borg.umn.edu [160.94.232.50]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.10/8.12.9) with SMTP id hB2FdDTa009691 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 07:39:13 -0800 Received: from [24.118.170.148] (c-24-118-170-148.mn.client2.attbi.com [24.118.170.148]) by lips.borg.umn.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id hB2Fd2XI041208; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 09:39:03 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from cattelan@thebarn.com) Subject: Re: XFS for 2.4 From: Russell Cattelan To: Marcelo Tosatti Cc: Nathan Scott , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-xfs@oss.sgi.com, Andrew Morton In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1070379282.82397.29.camel@lupo.thebarn.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.5 Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2003 09:34:43 -0600 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-archive-position: 1194 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: linux-xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: linux-xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com X-original-sender: cattelan@xfs.org Precedence: bulk X-list: linux-xfs On Tue, 2003-12-02 at 05:18, Marcelo Tosatti wrote: [snip] > Also I'm not completly sure if the generic changes are fine and I dont > like the XFS code in general. Ahh so the real truth comes out. Is there a reason for your sudden dislike of the XFS code? or is this just an arbitrary general dislike for unknown or unstated reasons? -- Russell Cattelan