Re: GFS, what's remaining

[Andrew Morton]

Alan Cox <alan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Iau, 2005-09-01 at 03:59 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > - Why the kernel needs two clustered fileystems
> 
> So delete reiserfs4, FAT, VFAT, ext2, and all the other "junk". 

Well, we did delete intermezzo.

I was looking for technical reasons, please.

> > - Why GFS is better than OCFS2, or has functionality which OCFS2 cannot
> >   possibly gain (or vice versa)
> > 
> > - Relative merits of the two offerings
> 
> You missed the important one - people actively use it and have been for
> some years. Same reason with have NTFS, HPFS, and all the others. On
> that alone it makes sense to include.

Again, that's not a technical reason.  It's _a_ reason, sure.  But what are
the technical reasons for merging gfs[2], ocfs2, both or neither?

If one can be grown to encompass the capabilities of the other then we're
left with a bunch of legacy code and wasted effort.

I'm not saying it's wrong.  But I'd like to hear the proponents explain why
it's right, please.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/