From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Chris Mason Subject: Re: Btrfs for mainline Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2009 08:18:58 -0500 Message-ID: <1231161538.4290.12.camel@think.oraclecorp.com> References: <1230722935.4680.5.camel@think.oraclecorp.com> <1230924749.7538.35.camel@think.oraclecorp.com> <20090102210104.GC496@one.firstfloor.org> <200901052107.43341.chris@csamuel.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Cc: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org, Andi Kleen , Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel To: Chris Samuel Return-path: In-Reply-To: <200901052107.43341.chris@csamuel.org> List-ID: On Mon, 2009-01-05 at 21:07 +1100, Chris Samuel wrote: > On Sat, 3 Jan 2009 8:01:04 am Andi Kleen wrote: > > > When it's in mainline I suspect people will start using it for that. > > Some people don't even wait for that. ;-) > > Seriously though, if that is a concern can I suggest taking the btrfsdev route > and, if you want a real belt and braces approach, perhaps require it to have a > mandatory mount option specified to successfully mount, maybe "eat_my_data" ? I think ext4dev made more sense for ext4 because people generally expect ext* to be stable. Btrfs doesn't quite have the reputation for stability yet, so I don't feel we need a special -dev name for it. But, if Andrew/Linus prefer that unstable filesystems are tagged with -dev, I'm happy to do it. -chris