From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay1.corp.sgi.com [137.38.102.111]) by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F5967F4E for ; Sun, 24 Aug 2014 21:15:45 -0500 (CDT) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda2.sgi.com [192.48.176.25]) by relay1.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E4748F8033 for ; Sun, 24 Aug 2014 19:15:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from greer.hardwarefreak.com (mo-65-41-216-221.sta.embarqhsd.net [65.41.216.221]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id mIAelCCT0vWDotqf for ; Sun, 24 Aug 2014 19:15:39 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <53FA9C4B.20805@hardwarefreak.com> Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2014 21:15:39 -0500 From: Stan Hoeppner MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: inode64 directory placement determinism References: <20140818070153.GL20518@dastard> <20140818224853.GD26465@dastard> <53FA47B4.6020103@hardwarefreak.com> In-Reply-To: <53FA47B4.6020103@hardwarefreak.com> 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 Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Dave Chinner Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com On 8/24/2014 3:14 PM, stan hoeppner wrote: > Due to the timetable and other restrictions I wouldn't be able to use > patches that might come from fleshing out our ideas here, but I think it > would be very useful functionality for others. Let me restate the above as I don't "think" we'd be able to use patches in the short term for version 1 of the product. That may change if said hypothetical patches might become available within the next 3 weeks, which is probably highly unlikely. They brought me in very late in the game, unfortunately, so I'm racing against the clock. And of course I wasn't able to assist in architectural planning, and make such a feature request here long ago, allowing for sufficient lead time. Stan _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs