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 02:44:27 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 23 Oct 2001 02:44:17 -0400 Received: from fe100.worldonline.dk ([212.54.64.211]:5642 "HELO fe100.worldonline.dk") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Tue, 23 Oct 2001 02:44:06 -0400 Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 08:44:33 +0200 From: Jens Axboe To: Robert Love Cc: Anuradha Ratnaweera , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Why XFS not in the main kernel? Message-ID: <20011023084433.D638@suse.de> In-Reply-To: <20011023113546.A1310@bee.lk> <1003818066.1491.2.camel@phantasy> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1003818066.1491.2.camel@phantasy> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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