From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S264269AbTLBAYz (ORCPT ); Mon, 1 Dec 2003 19:24:55 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S264270AbTLBAYz (ORCPT ); Mon, 1 Dec 2003 19:24:55 -0500 Received: from mtvcafw.sgi.com ([192.48.171.6]:28708 "EHLO zok.sgi.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S264269AbTLBAYx convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Mon, 1 Dec 2003 19:24:53 -0500 Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 11:23:47 +1100 From: Nathan Scott To: Larry McVoy , Marcelo Tosatti Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-xfs@oss.sgi.com Subject: Re: XFS for 2.4 Message-ID: <20031202002347.GD621@frodo> References: <20031201062052.GA2022@frodo> <20031201221058.GA621@frodo> <20031201222025.GA6152@work.bitmover.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT In-Reply-To: <20031201222025.GA6152@work.bitmover.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.3i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hello Larry, On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 02:20:25PM -0800, Larry McVoy wrote: > > I have no idea if XFS should or should not go in, I'm not commenting on that. > > However, having a bunch of XFS users say "put it in" when the maintainer > said no, DaveM said no, and no other file system people seem to be > stepping up to the bat with a review and a nod seems wrong. I must have missed that mail from Dave - or perhaps its still in flight to me. If you're refering to his "super-maintainence mode" comment, I don't believe there was any specific comments relating to XFS there (and XFS on 2.4 is in maintenance mode, has been for a long time). I also have mail from Marcelo saying he would look at merging XFS in 2.4.24-pre (back when we last sent it, in 2.4.23-pre) ... so, obviously I'm a little confused by this turn of events. > Have you spoken with the people who maintain the generic parts of the > VFS layer that you want to change? If those people were in the list of > people saying "XFS should go in" then I think you'd get a lot farther. That level of discussion with other kernel coders, and extensive review _has_ happened, in many cases _years_ ago now - this stuff has all been merged in 2.5 for ages. I wouldn't expect discussion from other filesystem people at this stage - it is all old news to them. > ... the people who maintain those interfaces which > are generic should make that decision. Don't you agree? Of course, and they have agreed that these are the way the changes should be made - if you look at 2.6 you will see these changes all merged there, a long time ago. As I said, there is nothing new or surprising here, and the changes are small and such that the other filesystems are unaffected. cheers. -- Nathan