Re: -mm -> 2.6.13 merge status

randy_dunlap
2005-06-21T19:43:13Z

On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 11:26:44 -0400 Jeff Garzik wrote:

| Andrew Morton wrote:
|
| > connector.patch
| >
| > Nice idea IMO, but there are still questions around the
| > implementation. More dialogue needed ;)
| >
| > connector-add-a-fork-connector.patch
| >
| > OK, but needs connector.
|
| I don't like connector

can you be more specific, like you did with reiser4?

| > kexec and kdump
| >
| > I guess we should merge these.
| >
| > I'm still concerned that the various device shutdown problems will
| > mean that the success rate for crashing kernels is not high enough for
| > kdump to be considered a success. In which case in six months time we'll
| > hear rumours about vendors shipping wholly different crashdump
| > implementations, which would be quite bad.
| >
| > But I think this has gone as far as it can go in -mm, so it's a bit of
| > a punt.
|
| I'm not particularly pleased with these, and indeed vendors ARE shipping
| other crashdump methods.

any specifics on the "not particularly pleased" part?

| > reiser4
| >
| > Merge it, I guess.
| >
| > The patches still contain all the reiser4-specific namespace
| > enhancements, only it is disabled, so it is effectively dead code. Maybe
| > we should ask that it actually be removed?
|
| The plugin stuff is crap. This is not a filesystem but a filesystem +
| new layer. IMO considered in that light, it duplicates functionality
| elsewhere.

I don't think that r4 is just a filesystem either, but you know more
about that than I do.

thanks,
---
~Randy