From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list xfs); Tue, 05 Jun 2007 18:51:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from postoffice.aconex.com (mail.app.aconex.com [203.89.192.138]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/SuSE Linux 0.7) with ESMTP id l561pbWt017857 for ; Tue, 5 Jun 2007 18:51:39 -0700 Subject: Re: XFS shrink functionality From: Nathan Scott Reply-To: nscott@aconex.com In-Reply-To: <20070605080012.GA10677@teal.hq.k1024.org> References: <1180715974.10796.46.camel@localhost> <20070604001632.GA86004887@sgi.com> <20070604084154.GA8273@teal.hq.k1024.org> <20070604092115.GX85884050@sgi.com> <20070605080012.GA10677@teal.hq.k1024.org> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2007 11:50:10 +1000 Message-Id: <1181094610.3758.2.camel@edge.yarra.acx> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: xfs To: Iustin Pop Cc: David Chinner , Ruben Porras , xfs@oss.sgi.com, cw@f00f.org On Tue, 2007-06-05 at 10:00 +0200, Iustin Pop wrote: > > > So given these caveats, is there a chance that a) this will be > actually > useful and b) will this be accepted? Theres no doubt that its useful, its probably the most frequently requested feature for XFS from the community. I'd imagine its acceptance will depend on code quality, testing, etc, etc. > The last time I tried to work on this there has been no real feedback > and I'm thinking that maybe the code will be too intrusive and will > give > to little gain to be accepted. IIRC, most people missed the patch last time cos it got bounced by the list (cant remember why) - that was why I missed it for a long time, anyway. cheers. -- Nathan