From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda2.sgi.com [192.48.176.25]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id p57E9q3G027057 for ; Tue, 7 Jun 2011 09:09:52 -0500 Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id 0F3C94A6352 for ; Tue, 7 Jun 2011 07:09:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (173-166-109-252-newengland.hfc.comcastbusiness.net [173.166.109.252]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id hL6NvN4IKV8A3SIy for ; Tue, 07 Jun 2011 07:09:51 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2011 10:09:49 -0400 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: XFS: accounting of reclaimable inodes is incorrect Message-ID: <20110607140949.GA31769@infradead.org> References: <4DEE0EA4.9090002@profihost.ag> <20110607115441.GA4653@infradead.org> <4DEE2078.3010102@profihost.ag> <20110607133429.GA9049@infradead.org> <4DEE2C36.8030008@profihost.ag> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4DEE2C36.8030008@profihost.ag> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Stefan Priebe - Profihost AG Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com On Tue, Jun 07, 2011 at 03:48:38PM +0200, Stefan Priebe - Profihost AG wrote: > Am 07.06.2011 15:34, schrieb Christoph Hellwig: > >On Tue, Jun 07, 2011 at 02:58:32PM +0200, Stefan Priebe - Profihost AG wrote: > >Linux 2.6.32 isn't really something supported by us. It's not just a > >very old codebase, but also one where a lot of the XFS code was pretty > >much in flux. If you want supported old releases work use one of > >the commercially supported one like RedHat or SuSE. > OK so my thought was totally wrong. I thought the longterm stable > releases will still get bugfixed by SGI or whoever wrote the stuff. > Sorry for that then. But what is then the idea of a longterm stable? I have no idea what the idea is, but it's clearly not viable for normal kernel developers. Backporting code to age old releases and QAing it is a major effort, and people generally don't do it unless they are paid for it. _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs