From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Subject: Re: GFS, what's remaining
Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 03:59:39 -0700
Message-ID: <20050901035939.435768f3.akpm@osdl.org>
References: <20050901104620.GA22482@redhat.com>
Reply-To: linux clustering <linux-cluster@redhat.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-cluster@redhat.com,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Return-path: <linux-cluster-bounces@redhat.com>
To: David Teigland <teigland@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <20050901104620.GA22482@redhat.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster>,
	<mailto:linux-cluster-request@redhat.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://www.redhat.com/archives/linux-cluster>
List-Post: <mailto:linux-cluster@redhat.com>
List-Help: <mailto:linux-cluster-request@redhat.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster>,
	<mailto:linux-cluster-request@redhat.com?subject=subscribe>
Sender: linux-cluster-bounces@redhat.com
Errors-To: linux-cluster-bounces@redhat.com
List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org

David Teigland <teigland@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> Hi, this is the latest set of gfs patches, it includes some minor munging
>  since the previous set.  Andrew, could this be added to -mm?

Dumb question: why?

Maybe I was asleep, but I don't recall seeing much discussion or exposition
of

- Why the kernel needs two clustered fileystems

- Why GFS is better than OCFS2, or has functionality which OCFS2 cannot
  possibly gain (or vice versa)

- Relative merits of the two offerings

etc.

Maybe this has all been thrashed out and agreed to.  If so, please remind me.