From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: GFS, what's remaining Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 18:56:03 +0100 Message-ID: <20050901175603.GA6218@infradead.org> References: <20050901104620.GA22482@redhat.com> <20050901035939.435768f3.akpm@osdl.org> <1125586158.15768.42.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20050901142708.GA24933@infradead.org> <1125588511.15768.52.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Christoph Hellwig , Andrew Morton , David Teigland , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-cluster@redhat.com Return-path: To: Alan Cox Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1125588511.15768.52.camel@localhost.localdomain> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On Thu, Sep 01, 2005 at 04:28:30PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote: > > That's GFS. The submission is about a GFS2 that's on-disk incompatible > > to GFS. > > Just like say reiserfs3 and reiserfs4 or ext and ext2 or ext2 and ext3 > then. I think the main point still stands - we have always taken > multiple file systems on board and we have benefitted enormously from > having the competition between them instead of a dictat from the kernel > kremlin that 'foofs is the one true way' I didn't say anything agains a particular fs, just that your previous arguments where utter nonsense. In fact I think having two or more cluster filesystems in the tree is a good thing. Whether the gfs2 code is mergeable is a completely different question, and it seems at least debatable to submit a filesystem for inclusion that's still pretty new. While we're at it I can't find anything describing what gfs2 is about, what is lacking in gfs, what structual changes did you make, etc.. p.s. why is gfs2 in fs/gfs in the kernel tree?