lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1999]   [Oct]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: HFS, QNXFS
Date

----- Original Message -----
From: David Weinehall <tao@acc.umu.se>
To: <asun@cobaltnet.com>; <scuba@wxs.nl>; <j@4u.net>
Cc: Linux Kernel Developer Mailing-list <linux-kernel@vger.rutgers.edu>
Sent: Saturday, October 09, 1999 4:30 PM
Subject: HFS, QNXFS


> Both HFS and QNXFS has been in the kernel for quite some time, yet both
> are flagged Experimental.
>
> Is this still the case? Are they considered more unstable than other
> filesystems in the kernel? If they are considered unstable, HFS should
> be made if [ "$CONFIG_EXPERIMENTAL" ] ...

I've used both and yes they are both still buggy and should remain marked
as such. Is anybody still actively maintaining them?

HFS at least seems like a good thing to have around when it actually works.
I havent looked at the code for HFS for quite some time so I dont know the
status of its progress.

I've sinned this week and now must use a windoze boxs. I cant easily get to
the code right now.



-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:54    [W:0.056 / U:0.344 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site