Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list xfs); Mon, 13 Nov 2006 08:16:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda1.sgi.com [192.48.168.28]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/SuSE Linux 0.7) with ESMTP id kADGFraG022699 for ; Mon, 13 Nov 2006 08:15:54 -0800 X-ASG-Debug-ID: 1163434504-20618-587-0 X-Barracuda-URL: http://cuda.sgi.com:80/cgi-bin/mark.cgi Received: from sandeen.net (sandeen.net [209.173.210.139]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id 954FF51C2B6 for ; Mon, 13 Nov 2006 08:15:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.0.0.4] (liberator.sandeen.net [10.0.0.4]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by sandeen.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E987187B8C1D; Mon, 13 Nov 2006 10:15:03 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <45589A06.7040503@sandeen.net> Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 10:15:02 -0600 From: Eric Sandeen User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.8 (Macintosh/20061025) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: James Pearson CC: xfs@oss.sgi.com X-ASG-Orig-Subj: Re: Update for the RHEL4 XFS module? Subject: Re: Update for the RHEL4 XFS module? References: <455893BE.4010208@moving-picture.com> In-Reply-To: <455893BE.4010208@moving-picture.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Barracuda-Spam-Score: 0.00 X-Barracuda-Spam-Status: No, SCORE=0.00 using per-user scores of TAG_LEVEL=3.5 QUARANTINE_LEVEL=1000.0 KILL_LEVEL=9.0 tests= X-Barracuda-Spam-Report: Code version 3.02, rules version 3.0.25893 Rule breakdown below pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- X-archive-position: 9619 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com X-original-sender: sandeen@sandeen.net Precedence: bulk X-list: xfs Content-Length: 726 Lines: 26 James Pearson wrote: > The RHEL4 XFS module code at > is now about a year old. > > Is there any chance that it could be updated with something based on > more recent code? > > Thanks > > James Pearson > > Funny you should ask, I just started looking at this last night :) It was originally based on the SLES9 xfs code; my plan is to simply update it to the latest sles9 xfs codebase, as that has been tended to with a goal of stability by the fine folks at sgi.... so, no bleeding-edge xfs for now (I don't particularly want to backport 2.6.18 xfs code to 2.6.9....) BTW I have test RHEL5 xfs rpms too, in very test-y state: http://sandeen.net/rhel5_xfs/ -Eric