Why XFS not in the main kernel?

Why XFS not in the main kernel?

[Anuradha Ratnaweera]

Is there a reason not to include XFS in the mainstream kernel?  It is very
stable and many (including us) are using it in production environments without
problems.

Obviously, there can't be liscening issues, because XFS is released under GPL.

Anuradha


-- 

Debian GNU/Linux (kernel 2.4.12)

It's no surprise that things are so screwed up: everyone that knows how
to run a government is either driving taxicabs or cutting hair.
		-- George Burns

Re: Why XFS not in the main kernel?

[Robert Love]

On Tue, 2001-10-23 at 01:35, Anuradha Ratnaweera wrote:
> Is there a reason not to include XFS in the mainstream kernel?  It is very
> stable and many (including us) are using it in production environments without
> problems.
> 
> Obviously, there can't be liscening issues, because XFS is released under GPL.

No one doubts XFS is stable.  It is a great fs.  But XFS includes some
modifications to block layer and such that people aren't ready to merge
yet -- XFS touches a lot of stuff.  During 2.5, the better bits of the
modifications will be used and then XFS can be merged properly.  Perhaps
once this proves stable a backport to 2.4 can be done.

	Robert Love

Re: Why XFS not in the main kernel?

[Jens Axboe]

On Tue, Oct 23 2001, Robert Love wrote:
> On Tue, 2001-10-23 at 01:35, Anuradha Ratnaweera wrote:
> > Is there a reason not to include XFS in the mainstream kernel?  It
> > is very stable and many (including us) are using it in production
> > environments without problems.
> > 
> > Obviously, there can't be liscening issues, because XFS is released
> > under GPL.
> 
> No one doubts XFS is stable.  It is a great fs.  But XFS includes some
> modifications to block layer and such that people aren't ready to

Not really the block layer -- this used to be the case. SGI kiobuf block
stuff was too ugly to live, and consequently it even died within the XFS
tree :)

-- 
Jens Axboe