From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1759797AbYDOSg3 (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Apr 2008 14:36:29 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752518AbYDOSgT (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Apr 2008 14:36:19 -0400 Received: from smtp1.linux-foundation.org ([140.211.169.13]:54865 "EHLO smtp1.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751304AbYDOSgS (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Apr 2008 14:36:18 -0400 Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 11:34:52 -0700 From: Andrew Morton To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: Adrian Bunk , Alan Cox , David Woodhouse , Miklos Szeredi , me@bobcopeland.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] OMFS filesystem version 3 Message-Id: <20080415113452.e9eacb54.akpm@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: <20080415165727.GA8783@infradead.org> References: <20080412205544.5e12a7d4.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20080413080130.GA9622@infradead.org> <20080413012001.8d7967f4.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20080413082815.GA20108@infradead.org> <1208121358.2700.4.camel@shinybook.infradead.org> <20080413154459.4b2f125d.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20080413234920.63711ca7@core> <20080413161014.cb06964c.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20080415151643.GD2454@cs181133002.pp.htv.fi> <20080415165727.GA8783@infradead.org> X-Mailer: Sylpheed 2.4.8 (GTK+ 2.12.5; x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 12:57:27 -0400 Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 06:16:43PM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > We are talking about a filesystem even Christoph considers OK. > > > > And who asked about the costs of merging crap like > > drivers/infiniband/hw/nes/ ? > > > > Speaking about the latter, with Linus' logic one might argue that OMFS > > must not be rejected since it adds support for some hardware... > > Excatly. I find it very strange to even consider rejecting a rather > small and very well written driver for let's say "political" reasons. "economic" would be a far more accurate term. Look, I have repeatedly described the reason why it is probable a poor tradeoff to merge code such as this. The only response has been "well we've done it before", which is largely a non-reason. You can continue to ignore my logic, but that won't go unnoticed. Just as a thought exercise: should we merge a small and well-written driver which has zero users?