xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [GIT PULL] XFS update for 2.6.25

To: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] XFS update for 2.6.25
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2008 00:03:12 -0500
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Lachlan McIlroy <lachlan@xxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <47AD330D.3010603@sandeen.net>
References: <20080208022705.0DB1058C4C11@chook.melbourne.sgi.com> <47AD284F.7080603@sandeen.net> <20080209045645.GB1428@infradead.org> <47AD330D.3010603@sandeen.net>
Sender: xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01)
On Fri, Feb 08, 2008 at 10:58:53PM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 08, 2008 at 10:13:03PM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> >> Lachlan McIlroy wrote:
> >>> Please pull from the for-linus branch:
> >>>     git pull git://oss.sgi.com:8090/xfs/xfs-2.6.git for-linus
> >>>
> >>> This will update the following files:
> >>>
> >>>  fs/xfs/Makefile-linux-2.6      |    1 -
> >> Is there a reason the other various makefile updates still haven't been
> >> pushed?  They're a lot tidier now, and they facilitate out-of-tree
> >> building...
> > 
> > Well, the makefiles are pretty different for CVS vs mainline to modular
> > quota and dmapi.  I'm thinking about doing a proof of concept modular
> > quota patch for mainline and if it doesn't get too ugly that would
> > mean the makefiles are a lot more in sync.
> 
> Even if they differ, they can still get the same basic treatment.  I'll
> make a patch if desired.  The current kernel.org makefiles are a mess,
> IMHO :)

They could, but I understand the SGI people fully if they try to touch
the things that differ as little as possible.

But yeah, please send a patch, I've done quite a few mainline-only
patches yesterday aswell :)


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