From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1758638AbcDEMyw (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Tue, 5 Apr 2016 08:54:52 -0400
Received: from verein.lst.de ([213.95.11.211]:60408 "EHLO newverein.lst.de"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1758122AbcDEMyv (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Tue, 5 Apr 2016 08:54:51 -0400
Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2016 14:54:48 +0200
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
To: joern@logfs.org, prasadjoshi.linux@gmail.com
Cc: logfs@logfs.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: state of logfs?
Message-ID: <20160405125448.GA3092@lst.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

Logfs was introduced to the kernel in 2009, and hasn't seen any non-drive
by changes since 2012, while having lots of unsolved issues all over.

Is there any good reason to keep it in the tree?