From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tupshin Harper Subject: Re: Reiser4 and linux 2.6.0 Date: Sat, 09 Aug 2003 19:02:56 -0700 Message-ID: <3F35A7D0.8000607@tupshin.com> References: <3F1EF7DB.2010805@namesys.com> <3F1F6005.4060307@tupshin.com> <1059021113.7911.13.camel@localhost> <3F1F66F0.1050406@tupshin.com> <1059024090.9728.22.camel@localhost> <16159.48809.812634.455756@laputa.namesys.com> <3F1FF6DB.2090104@tupshin.com> <20030724152649.GB12647@work.bitmover.com> <3F1FFBF9.2050308@tupshin.com> <20030724155432.GE12647@work.bitmover.com> <20030801161520.GA17083@pillars.net> <3F2A94F1.2010502@tupshin.com> <16170.38409.267629.396781@laputa.namesys.com> <3F351722.2000108@namesys.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Errors-To: flx@namesys.com In-Reply-To: <3F351722.2000108@namesys.com> List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed" To: Hans Reiser Cc: Nikita Danilov , reiserfs mailing list Hans Reiser wrote: > Nikita Danilov wrote: > >> Tupshin Harper writes: >> > Larry was kind enough to send me the patch of his results of this >> merge, > but unfortunately it suffered from the same incompleteness >> problems that > the recent diffs on the namesys ftp site do. They >> apply cleanly, but > they completely omit the contents of the >> fs/reiser4 directory which has > the bulk of the code. It seem that >> the problem resides with the reiser > folks. Maybe they have some >> more complicated structure involving two > trees. Not sure, but a >> correct patch looks like it has to come from the > reiser4 team. >> >> This is because Larry only made a diff against >> bk://bk.namesys.com/bk/reiser4-linux-2.5 which is a repository >> containing changes needed by the reiser4 in the core kernel code. >> >> Bulk of reiser4 code (content of fs/reiser4) is in >> bk://bk.namesys.com/bk/reiser4 repository. >> >> > > -Tupshin >> > >> Nikita. >> >> >> >> > make more effort to make this well documented for users. If they are > asking these questions, it means that you failed to document. > It would still be wonderful to have a way of getting such patches without going through bk. I requested that a working (complete) patch be made against a recent kernel version(2.6.0-test2 or later at this point) a few weeks ago, and while a got positive response, I still haven't seen anything. I would think you would want to make this very easy for people who are already going through the effort of testing 2.6 kernels. -Tupshin