From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 23 Oct 2001 02:20:44 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 23 Oct 2001 02:20:34 -0400 Received: from zero.tech9.net ([209.61.188.187]:54538 "EHLO zero.tech9.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 23 Oct 2001 02:20:20 -0400 Subject: Re: Why XFS not in the main kernel? From: Robert Love To: Anuradha Ratnaweera Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20011023113546.A1310@bee.lk> In-Reply-To: <20011023113546.A1310@bee.lk> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Evolution/0.16.99+cvs.2001.10.18.15.19 (Preview Release) Date: 23 Oct 2001 02:21:05 -0400 Message-Id: <1003818066.1491.2.camel@phantasy> Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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