Hans Reiser wrote:
> 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.
>
I meant to add that the default mount options are not experimental in my
view, they are tested and chosen as what works well and is simple/elegant.
-- 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