xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: XFS to main kernel source

To: Steve Lord <lord@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: XFS to main kernel source
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2001 07:58:54 +0200
Cc: Alan Cox <alan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Gonyou, Austin" <austin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, narancs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <200109202131.f8KLVbB19795@jen.americas.sgi.com>; from lord@sgi.com on Thu, Sep 20, 2001 at 04:31:37PM -0500
Mail-followup-to: Christoph Hellwig <hch>, Steve Lord <lord@xxxxxxx>, Alan Cox <alan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Gonyou, Austin" <austin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, narancs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
References: <hch@ns.caldera.de> <200109202131.f8KLVbB19795@jen.americas.sgi.com>
Sender: owner-linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.2.5i
On Thu, Sep 20, 2001 at 04:31:37PM -0500, Steve Lord wrote:
> >  o The whole vnode layer
> 
> Two answers here - economics and code stability. This is a filesystem
> which has been worked on by people being payed to do so by a corporation,
> therefore there is a budget (long since blown). It was simpler and hence
> cheaper to wrap XFS in a conversion layer than to rework the code down
> into the bowels of the filesystem. Then the stability part of it, we
> started with a working filesystem, from an engineering standpoint it 
> made more sense to keep as much of the existing code base intact as
> possible - the less surgery performed the better in terms of keeping
> things running, and making it easy to take enhancements and fixes made
> in the Irix base into the Linux code (we don't do it the other way around).

I completly understand SGI's reson to do this - but yet I don't want to
see such code in the mainline for obvios reasons..

> >  o the hooks for a propritary clusterfs..
> 
> Well we have to make money on something you know.... and in reality
> there are not a lot of them in the filesystem.

Again I understand SGI's reasoning - but such hooks are usually not
considered to be a good thing line.

        Christoph

-- 
Of course it doesn't work. We've performed a software upgrade.


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