Re: XFS for 2.4

From: Steve Lord
Date: Tue Dec 02 2003 - 13:23:37 EST

Christoph Hellwig wrote:

On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 10:02:51AM -0800, Larry McVoy wrote:

Not your call, it's Marcelo's call. And I and he have both suggested
that the way to get XFS in is to have someone with some clout in the file
system area agree that it is fine. It's a perfectly reasonable request
and the longer it goes unanswered the less likely it is that XFS will get
integrated. The fact that $XFS_USER wants it in is $XFS_USER's problem.
$VFS_MAINTAINER needs to say "hey, this looks good, what's the fuss about?"
and I suspect that Marcelo would be more interested.

I think you're missing the point. The patches have been review many
times, they've been posted to lkml many time with the request for comment
and they've been merged into 2.5 in almost exactly that form.

It is also not unreasonable to reject a set of changes right before
freezing 2.4. 2.4 is supposed to be dead.

That's indeed a point and a very resonable one. But a few of the patches
Nathan has in that BK repo have been submited for more than year again
and again, and Marcelo's reply (for those 10% of the cases that a reply
existed at all) was something along the lines "let's postpone it after
the next release". In my opinion that's not the right attitude from
a kernel maintainer to someone who wants to contribute major work.

Thank you Christoph,

Been sitting here reading this and attempting to control my blood pressure.
One thing those folks out there saying this code needs reviewing might
want to consider is that XFS spent several months getting 'Christophed'
in the last year. Those of you who have seen Christoph in action know what
that means ;-).


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at