Messages in this thread | | | From | "brettt" <> | Subject | Re: HFS, QNXFS | Date | Thu, 14 Oct 1999 06:23:53 -0500 |
| |
----- 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/
| |