From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Subject: Re: GFS, what's remaining
Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2005 15:49:18 +0100
Message-ID: <1125586158.15768.42.camel@localhost.localdomain>
References: <20050901104620.GA22482@redhat.com>
	 <20050901035939.435768f3.akpm@osdl.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: David Teigland <teigland@redhat.com>,
	linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-cluster@redhat.com
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner+glk-linux-kernel-3=40m.gmane.org-S965145AbVIAOZ4@vger.kernel.org>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
In-Reply-To: <20050901035939.435768f3.akpm@osdl.org>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org

On Iau, 2005-09-01 at 03:59 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> - Why the kernel needs two clustered fileystems

So delete reiserfs4, FAT, VFAT, ext2, and all the other "junk". 

> - Why GFS is better than OCFS2, or has functionality which OCFS2 cannot
>   possibly gain (or vice versa)
> 
> - Relative merits of the two offerings

You missed the important one - people actively use it and have been for
some years. Same reason with have NTFS, HPFS, and all the others. On
that alone it makes sense to include.

Alan