| To: | linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
|---|---|
| Subject: | XFS in mainline 2.4? (was Re: [PATCH] d_alloc_anon for 2.4.21-pre6) |
| From: | Nicholas Wourms <nwourms@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Thu, 27 Mar 2003 12:15:57 -0500 |
| References: | <Pine.LNX.4.53L.0303262107480.2544@freak.distro.conectiva> <20030327165112.A2395@infradead.org> |
| Sender: | linux-xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win 9x 4.90; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20030208 Netscape/7.02 |
Christoph Hellwig wrote:
[$BIGNUM repost since August 2002, still zero feedback] Speaking of XFS, would it be possible to merge it into the 2.4.X mainline any time soon? Despite what Alan says, XFS doesn't touch any more core code then his ide rewrite has. Also, the sendfile64 syscall modified core code as well. So, I don't think he or anyone else can get away with rejecting it based on it modifying core code. JFS has been in there for a few releases now, and I'd argue that there are probably more XFS users then JFS users. Since it was accepted into 2.5 awhile back, it seems appropriate (to me) that it eventually go into 2.4. IT would also have the side benefit of keeping the XFS code more (or less) in sync with what's in bk. Just a thought.... Cheers, Nicholas |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | TAKE - fix a build breakage in xfs, Steve Lord |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | [Bug 230] umount hangs after high disk load, bugzilla-daemon |
| Previous by Thread: | TAKE - fix a build breakage in xfs, Steve Lord |
| Next by Thread: | Re: XFS in mainline 2.4? (was Re: [PATCH] d_alloc_anon for 2.4.21-pre6), Christoph Hellwig |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |