From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751239AbWF0Ikg (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Jun 2006 04:40:36 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751283AbWF0Ikg (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Jun 2006 04:40:36 -0400 Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:732 "EHLO mx2.mail.elte.hu") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751239AbWF0Ikf (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Jun 2006 04:40:35 -0400 Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 10:35:44 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Andrew Morton Cc: hch@infradead.org, swhiteho@redhat.com, torvalds@osdl.org, teigland@redhat.com, pcaulfie@redhat.com, kanderso@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: GFS2 and DLM Message-ID: <20060627083544.GA32761@elte.hu> References: <1150805833.3856.1356.camel@quoit.chygwyn.com> <20060623144928.GA32694@infradead.org> <20060626200300.GA15424@elte.hu> <20060627063339.GA27938@elte.hu> <20060627000633.91e06155.akpm@osdl.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20060627000633.91e06155.akpm@osdl.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i X-ELTE-SpamScore: -3.1 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-3.1 required=5.9 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_50 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.0.3 -3.3 ALL_TRUSTED Did not pass through any untrusted hosts 0.0 BAYES_50 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 40 to 60% [score: 0.5000] 0.2 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Andrew Morton wrote: > On Tue, 27 Jun 2006 08:33:39 +0200 > Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > Isnt this whole episode highly hypocritic to begin with? > > Might be, but that's not relevant to GFS2's suitability. it is relevant to a certain degree, because it creates a (IMO) false impression of merging showstoppers. After months of being in -mm, and after addressing all issues that were raised (and there was a fair amount of review activity December last year iirc), one week prior the close of the merge window a 'huge' list of issues are raised. (after belovingly calling the GFS2 code a "huge mess", to create a positive and productive tone for the review discussion i guess.) So far in my reading there are only 2 serious ones in that list: - tty_* use in cluster-aware quota.c. Firstly, ocfs2 doesnt do quota - which is fair enough, but this also means that there was no in-tree filesystem to base stuff off. Secondly, the tty_* use was inherited from fs/quota.c - hardly something i'd consider a fatal sin. Anyway, despite the mitigating factors it is an arguably lame thing and it should be (and will be) fixed. - GFP_NOFAIL: most other journalling filesystems seem to be doing this or worse. Fixing it is _hard_. Suddenly this becomes a showstopper? Huh? (the "use the generic facilities" arguments are only valid if the generic facilities can be used as-is, and if they are just optimal as the one implemented by the filesystem.) Ingo