From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261404AbVHBHBH (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Aug 2005 03:01:07 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261400AbVHBHBH (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Aug 2005 03:01:07 -0400 Received: from svr68.ehostpros.com ([67.15.48.48]:28564 "EHLO svr68.ehostpros.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261404AbVHBHBF (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Aug 2005 03:01:05 -0400 Subject: Re: CheckFS: Checkpoints and Block Level Incremental Backup (BLIB) From: Milind Dumbare To: "Theodore Ts'o" Cc: ext2-devel , Linux Kernel In-Reply-To: <20050801100813.GA10666@thunk.org> References: <1122882639.3521.14.camel@matrix.linsyssoft.com> <20050801100813.GA10666@thunk.org> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2005 12:35:13 +0530 Message-Id: <1122966314.3413.6.camel@matrix.linsyssoft.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.0.2 (2.0.2-3) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - svr68.ehostpros.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - vger.kernel.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - linsyssoft.com X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi, This is just an intermediate diff between the original source and our source with checkfs replaced by ext3. We will be careful about maintaining the copyright notices when finishing this merge. Thank you, Milind Dumbare (www.linsyssoft.com) On Mon, 2005-08-01 at 06:08 -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > On Mon, Aug 01, 2005 at 01:20:39PM +0530, Milind Dumbare wrote: > > Hi, > > > > The diff file generated by comparing ext3/ and > > kernel/fs/checkfs/ can also be accessed from the link > > http://checkfs.linsyssoft.com/temp/ > > I cleaned it, but still it has some unnecessary differences. I > > am working on that to make it more clean and will send it to u as soon > > as I finish with that. > > Thanks for working on it; it's much appreciated. One very quick > comment; it's generally considered poor form to remove other people's > copyright notices; it's a do unto others as you would do unto them > (lest their lawyers do unto you what your lawyers might do unto them > if the positions were reversed :-) sort of thing. > > - Ted > >