From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S263843AbTLJTdd (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Dec 2003 14:33:33 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S263902AbTLJTdc (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Dec 2003 14:33:32 -0500 Received: from ns.virtualhost.dk ([195.184.98.160]:10887 "EHLO virtualhost.dk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S263843AbTLJTda (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Dec 2003 14:33:30 -0500 Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 20:30:55 +0100 From: Jens Axboe To: Joe Thornber , Paul Jakma Cc: Marcelo Tosatti , Linux Mailing List Subject: Re: Device-mapper submission for 2.4 Message-ID: <20031210193054.GA24512@suse.de> References: <20031209134551.GG472@reti> <20031209143412.GI472@reti> <20031209222624.GA6591@reti> <20031210084546.GG3988@suse.de> <20031210174418.GF476@reti> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20031210174418.GF476@reti> X-OS: Linux 2.4.23aa1-axboe i686 User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.3i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Dec 10 2003, Joe Thornber wrote: > On Wed, Dec 10, 2003 at 05:30:01PM +0000, Paul Jakma wrote: > > On Wed, 10 Dec 2003, Jens Axboe wrote: > > > > > Arguments akin to "But XFS got merged, surely we can to" don't hold > > > up one bit. Should be obvious why. > > > > Its not about a /new/ feature, its about an existing feature which is > > incompatible between 2.4 and 2.6. > > > > I dont really care whether its done via forward or backware compat. > > (but why was LVM1 removed from 2.6?) > > The LVM1 driver was removed because dm covered the same functionality > + lots more, and is more flexible. The LVM2 tools still understand > the LVM1 metadata format, so there is no problem about not being able > to read data in 2.6. The main reason for submitting dm to 2.4 was Great, so then there's zero reason to merge it in 2.4.