From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list xfs); Wed, 20 Feb 2008 06:13:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda1.sgi.com [192.48.168.28]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11/SuSE Linux 0.7) with ESMTP id m1KEDHdG017941 for ; Wed, 20 Feb 2008 06:13:20 -0800 Received: from sandeen.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id 174C175A989 for ; Wed, 20 Feb 2008 06:13:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from sandeen.net (sandeen.net [209.173.210.139]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id A6KH6wFMScPbkDVQ for ; Wed, 20 Feb 2008 06:13:43 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <47BC3578.5050209@sandeen.net> Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 08:13:12 -0600 From: Eric Sandeen MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Is CVS stable? References: In-Reply-To: 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: eric c Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com eric c wrote: > Hello, > > I have recently seen some patches for slabcache related > xfs_inode/xfs_vnode_t/dentry_cache taking up alot of memory: > http://oss.sgi.com/archives/xfs/2007-12/msg00154.html > http://oss.sgi.com/archives/xfs/2008-02/msg00138.html > > If I cvs on linux-2.6-xfs, is it stable for production or bleeding? I'd never consider any cvs head as "stable for production" That said, the xfs cvs tree is probably one of the more stable bleeding-edge trees you'll find. ;) -Eric > Thanks > eric c > xcellula@gmail.com > >