From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list xfs); Thu, 13 Sep 2007 19:54:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sandeen.net (sandeen.net [209.173.210.139]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/SuSE Linux 0.7) with ESMTP id l8E2sj4p017616 for ; Thu, 13 Sep 2007 19:54:47 -0700 Message-ID: <46E9F7F3.6090405@sandeen.net> Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 21:54:43 -0500 From: Eric Sandeen MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: state of the cvs tree References: <20070912121938.GA16870@lst.de> <46E870AB.30906@sgi.com> <20070913104000.GB3351@lst.de> <20070913234829.GW734179@sgi.com> In-Reply-To: <20070913234829.GW734179@sgi.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: xfs To: David Chinner Cc: Christoph Hellwig , Mark Goodwin , xfs@oss.sgi.com David Chinner wrote: >> Then I have a patch from Eric sitting in the front of my queue, >> >> "[PATCH V2] refactor xfs_mountfs for clarity & stack savings" >> >> which might be a little too big for 2.6.24, but should at least go into >> CVS ASAP. I think Eric would be really happy to see it in 2.6.24 aswell >> because that means FC8 could actually mount xfs out of the box without >> running out of stack or something. > > Yeah, that's been floating about for a bit and has been tested in > FC8 so seems like a no-brainer for .24. you're assuming anyone besides me tested xfs in F8TestX... *grin* (F8Test2 was released today... hint hint...) -Eric