From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S269191AbUJMPcy (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Oct 2004 11:32:54 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S269190AbUJMPcy (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Oct 2004 11:32:54 -0400 Received: from viper.oldcity.dca.net ([216.158.38.4]:37059 "HELO viper.oldcity.dca.net") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S269146AbUJMPb5 (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Oct 2004 11:31:57 -0400 Subject: Re: Using ilookup? From: Lee Revell To: David Woodhouse Cc: manningc2@actrix.gen.nz, linux-kernel In-Reply-To: <1097657423.5178.42.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <20041013013930.9BB6649E9@blood.actrix.co.nz> <1097657423.5178.42.camel@localhost.localdomain> Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1097680972.5879.14.camel@krustophenia.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.6 Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 11:22:53 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 2004-10-13 at 04:50, David Woodhouse wrote: > > 2') A further issue here is that ilookup is not available in some older 2.4.x > > versions. Is it Ok to just patch the ilookup code in, say, 2.4.27 back into > > earlier versions (say 2.4.18 which seems a popular vintage for embedded stuff > > for some reason or other). > > No. If these people want new file systems and new features in code code, > why on earth are they still using 2.4.18? They should be on 2.6, or at > _least_ current 2.4 kernels. I could sort of understand if they've had a > lot of testing in the two and a half years since 2.4.18 was released and > they don't want to change _anything_.... but that obviously isn't the > case if they're adding new stuff like this. 2.4.18 is probably popular for embedded applications because that's about where development on the preempt/low latency patches for 2.4 stopped. Lee