Alan Cox wrote:
>On Fri, 2002-08-09 at 18:38, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>
>
>>Are you sure you want to have a new block allocator in the stable series
>>before it has been added to 2.5?
>>
>>
>
>Thats what I was also wondering. It seems like its an experimental
>update rather than a bug fix so ought to be 2.5 stuff
>
>-
>To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
>the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
>More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>
>
>
>
The non-default mount options are experimental, and the options to have
things revert to old behaviour play it safe just in case.
I understand why all of you are doubtful about it going into 2.4, it is
not that you are crazy, but my closeness to the code makes me think it
is stable enough that it should go in. Also remember that we have an
extensive test suite, we have been benchmarking variations on this code
for months, and I frankly don't think that 2.5 insertion will get it
enough testing to be instructive to us.
-- Hans- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Aug 15 2002 - 22:00:25 EST