[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       linux-xfs
Subject:    Re: XFS+Tux = patch trouble
From:       "Sean Elble" <S_Elble () yahoo ! com>
Date:       2001-11-07 0:08:58
[Download RAW message or body]

Good point . . . if we (XFS users) _really_ want to get XFS in 2.4, that is
exactly what we have to do. The XFS patch is huge, but it works well (JFS
doesn't, yet, and it doesn't have any of the features that XFS has, like
ACLs, or even quota support, but that's another discussion.). By getting
more of the code XFS _depends_ on in the 2.4 tree, you decrease the number
of mods required to patch XFS to a mainline kernel; eventually, this could
get to the point where JFS is now, and we wouldn't need to touch nearly as
many files. I'm no developer, let alone a XFS developer :-), but is this
idea reasonable from a programmer's point of view?

-----------------------------------------------
Sean P. Elble
Editor, Writer, Co-Webmaster
ReactiveLinux.com (Formerly MaximumLinux.org)
http://www.reactivelinux.com/
elbles@reactivelinux.com
-----------------------------------------------

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ingo Molnar" <mingo@elte.hu>
To: "Keith Owens" <kaos@melbourne.sgi.com>
Cc: "Tux mailing list" <tux-list@redhat.com>; "XFS Mailing list"
<linux-xfs@oss.sgi.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2001 4:52 AM
Subject: Re: XFS+Tux = patch trouble


>
> On Tue, 6 Nov 2001, Keith Owens wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 6 Nov 2001 09:20:08 +0100 (CET),
> > Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote:
> > >it would be nice if SGI folks pushed harder for XFS's integration into
the
> > >mainstream kernel.
> >
> > We have been trying hard since at least 2.4.5.  I split the big XFS
> > patch into digestible chunks, separating the core XFS code from the
> > add on stuff like kdb, lvm, dmapi, quota.  We have been sending mail
> > to Linus about the core XFS patches since June 5, 2001.  Response -
> > total silence.  Not even "I don't like it", we get no response at all.
>
> i dont think Linus is the first step needed. XFS is pretty intrusive in
> the VFS area, so i guess you should first sort out the necessery VFS
> modifications with Al Viro? And then go step by step forward. I mean, we
> are in a stable kernel branch and this is a pretty big patch even just
> counting the core changes.
>
> Ingo

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]