Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*XFS\s+for\s+2\.4\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*XFS\s+for\s+2\.4\s*$/: 82 ]

Total 82 documents matching your query.

1. Re: XFS for 2.4 (score: 1): Author: Stefan Smietanowski <stesmi@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2003 10:44:10 +0100; Jens Axboe wrote: On Mon, Dec 01 2003, Nathan Scott wrote: Hi Marcelo, Please do a bk pull http://xfs.org:8090/linux-2.4+coreXFS This will merge the core 2.4 kernel changes required for supporting th; /archives/xfs/2003-12/msg00000.html (9,278 bytes)
2. Re: XFS for 2.4 (score: 1): Author: Dan Yocum <yocum@xxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2003 15:00:09 -0600; We (Fermilab) second this request. We won't be touching 2.6 until it's really stable (read as, Red Hat comes out with an official distro that has it built in), and we already have *a lot* of XFS fil; /archives/xfs/2003-12/msg00008.html (9,618 bytes)
3. Re: XFS for 2.4 (score: 1): Author: Bryan Whitehead <driver@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2003 13:50:08 -0800; I'd like to "third" this request. Have a large amount of data here on XFS with v2.4 kernel. Would be nice to be able to use pre-release 2.4 for testing without having to manually hack in XFS paches f; /archives/xfs/2003-12/msg00010.html (10,364 bytes)
4. Re: XFS for 2.4 (score: 1): Author: "Jeffrey E. Hundstad" <jeffrey.hundstad@xxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2003 16:01:35 -0600; I'd like to add my vote also. I've been using XFS for years. The XFS patches work well. But having them in the standard kernel would be very nice. -- jeffrey hundstad Bryan Whitehead wrote: I'd like; /archives/xfs/2003-12/msg00011.html (10,903 bytes)
5. Re: XFS for 2.4 (score: 1): Author: Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 09:10:58 +1100; Hi Marcelo, Please reconsider -- the "core" kernel changes we need have existed for three+ years outside of the mainline tree, and each is a small and easily understood change that doesn't affect oth; /archives/xfs/2003-12/msg00013.html (10,917 bytes)
6. Re: XFS for 2.4 (score: 1): Author: Gerardo Exequiel Pozzi <vmlinuz386@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 19:13:03 -0300; Yes, exactly. Ok the XFS changes some vfs code, but works OK, and is in the -ac and -ck trees. And another point is make the possiblility to add some patchs such as security without hunks failed, and; /archives/xfs/2003-12/msg00014.html (11,089 bytes)
7. Re: XFS for 2.4 (score: 1): Author: Larry McVoy <lm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 14:20:25 -0800; I have no idea if XFS should or should not go in, I'm not commenting on that. However, having a bunch of XFS users say "put it in" when the maintainer said no, DaveM said no, and no other file system; /archives/xfs/2003-12/msg00015.html (10,491 bytes)
8. Re: XFS for 2.4 (score: 1): Author: Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 11:23:47 +1100; Hello Larry, I must have missed that mail from Dave - or perhaps its still in flight to me. If you're refering to his "super-maintainence mode" comment, I don't believe there was any specific comment; /archives/xfs/2003-12/msg00019.html (10,910 bytes)
9. Re: XFS for 2.4 (score: 1): Author: Ethan Benson <erbenson@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 00:20:04 -0900; that VFS fix has also been blessed by Linus, and is in 2.6, so thats a backport now. and its security related. Another point, 2.6 is not yet stable or fully usuable on many non-x86 architectures, suc; /archives/xfs/2003-12/msg00024.html (12,778 bytes)
10. Re: XFS for 2.4 (score: 1): Author: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 09:28:41 +0000; 2.6 seems to be much better than 2.4 at least for recent pmac hardware..; /archives/xfs/2003-12/msg00025.html (9,499 bytes)
11. Re: XFS for 2.4 (score: 1): Author: Marcelo Tosatti <marcelo.tosatti@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 09:18:26 -0200 (BRST); Nathan, I remember I have said to you "resend me XFS for 2.4.24-pre". A changed my mind since then... JFS did not touch generic code as I remember. Come one, it is not so hard to maintain a patch in; /archives/xfs/2003-12/msg00027.html (12,459 bytes)
12. Re: XFS for 2.4 (score: 1): Author: Marcelo Tosatti <marcelo.tosatti@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 09:22:48 -0200 (BRST); Nathan, Yes, I indeed told you "resent me for 2.4.24-pre". I have changed my mind. Sorry for the trouble that caused you. A development tree is much different from a stable tree. You cant just simply; /archives/xfs/2003-12/msg00028.html (11,119 bytes)
13. Re: XFS for 2.4 (score: 1): Author: Marcelo Tosatti <marcelo.tosatti@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 09:48:34 -0200 (BRST); s/one/on/ Ugh; /archives/xfs/2003-12/msg00029.html (11,928 bytes)
14. Re: XFS for 2.4 (score: 1): Author: Ethan Benson <erbenson@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 03:06:42 -0900; 2.6.10 is NOT almost out the door, and the fact is a great many are not going to trust it till then. -- Ethan Benson http://www.alaska.net/~erbenson/ Attachment: pgpgspwy74cTH.pgp Description: PGP si; /archives/xfs/2003-12/msg00030.html (10,169 bytes)
15. Re: XFS for 2.4 (score: 1): Author: Russell Cattelan <cattelan@xxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2003 09:34:43 -0600; 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 <cattelan; /archives/xfs/2003-12/msg00031.html (9,436 bytes)
16. Re: XFS for 2.4 (score: 1): Author: Marcelo Tosatti <marcelo.tosatti@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 13:50:08 -0200 (BRST); I always disliked the XFS code. I dont like the style of the code. Thats a personal issue, though, and shouldnt matter. The bigger point is that XFS touches generic code and I'm not sure if that can; /archives/xfs/2003-12/msg00032.html (9,809 bytes)
17. Re: XFS for 2.4 (score: 1): Author: Darrell Michaud <dmichaud@xxxxxxx>; Date: 02 Dec 2003 11:10:43 -0500; As a user it would be very beneficial for me to have XFS support in the official 2.4 kernel tree. XFS been stable and "2.4 integration-ready" for a long time, and 2.4 is going to be used in certain e; /archives/xfs/2003-12/msg00033.html (10,831 bytes)
18. Re: XFS for 2.4 (score: 1): Author: Jeremy Jackson <jerj@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2003 11:08:25 -0500; One example is EVMS (device-mapper) snapshots. Not stable in 2.6, yet related to XFS. It would be nice if the XFS team could maintain patches for newer 2.4 kernels of official releases (ie 1.3.1). Th; /archives/xfs/2003-12/msg00034.html (10,205 bytes)
19. Re: XFS for 2.4 (score: 1): Author: Jeremy Jackson <jerj@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2003 11:13:43 -0500; I think the dislike is justified. XFS is kind of like an alien parasite attached to Linux. IRIX's IO system is different, it's taken a lot of changes. I still think it is the best filesystem with a l; /archives/xfs/2003-12/msg00035.html (10,504 bytes)
20. Re: XFS for 2.4 (score: 1): Author: Austin Gonyou <austin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2003 10:21:54 -0600; I second this as well. I'm sure there are others. XFS is a good option to have for official FS inclusion and I'm *very* happy it's in 2.6. If it were in 2.4, that *may* make adoption of 2.6 for some,; /archives/xfs/2003-12/msg00036.html (12,030 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 20
Page: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]