From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] Ceph distributed file system client for 2.6.33 Date: Sat, 19 Dec 2009 00:33:17 -0500 Message-ID: <14397.1261200797@localhost> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="==_Exmh_1261200797_3855P"; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: torvalds@linux-foundation.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org To: Sage Weil Return-path: Received: from lennier.cc.vt.edu ([198.82.162.213]:55440 "EHLO lennier.cc.vt.edu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750801AbZLSFda (ORCPT ); Sat, 19 Dec 2009 00:33:30 -0500 In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 18 Dec 2009 12:54:02 PST." Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: --==_Exmh_1261200797_3855P Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 12:54:02 PST, Sage Weil said: > I would still like to see ceph merged for 2.6.33. It's certainly not > production ready, but it would be greatly beneficial to be in mainline for > the same reasons other file systems like btrfs and exofs were merged > early. Is the on-the-wire protocol believed to be correct, complete, and stable? How about any userspace APIs and on-disk formats? In other words.. > > The git tree includes the full patchset posted in October and incremental > > changes since then. I've tried to cram in all the anticipated protocol > > changes, but the file system is still strictly EXPERIMENTAL and is marked Anything left dangling on the changes? --==_Exmh_1261200797_3855P Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 iD8DBQFLLGWdcC3lWbTT17ARAgDgAKD92sdfp2Q4T6ucKJyVthh0gJ26fQCgvvMb JSVxggXzOMQn42BaiIFX++U= =wkjY -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --==_Exmh_1261200797_3855P--