* Why XFS not in the main kernel?
@ 2001-10-23 5:35 Anuradha Ratnaweera
2001-10-23 6:21 ` Robert Love
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Anuradha Ratnaweera @ 2001-10-23 5:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-kernel
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: Why XFS not in the main kernel?
2001-10-23 5:35 Why XFS not in the main kernel? Anuradha Ratnaweera
@ 2001-10-23 6:21 ` Robert Love
2001-10-23 6:44 ` Jens Axboe
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Robert Love @ 2001-10-23 6:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Anuradha Ratnaweera; +Cc: linux-kernel
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: Why XFS not in the main kernel?
2001-10-23 6:21 ` Robert Love
@ 2001-10-23 6:44 ` Jens Axboe
0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Jens Axboe @ 2001-10-23 6:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Robert Love; +Cc: Anuradha Ratnaweera, linux-kernel
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2001-10-23 6:44 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2001-10-23 5:35 Why XFS not in the main kernel? Anuradha Ratnaweera
2001-10-23 6:21 ` Robert Love
2001-10-23 6:44 ` Jens Axboe
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox