Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 2 Dec 2003 15:21:54 -0500 (EST) | From | Tomas Konir <> | Subject | Re: Linux 2.4 future |
| |
On Tue, 2 Dec 2003, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> Em Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 02:38:54PM -0500, Tomas Konir escreveu: > > On Tue, 2 Dec 2003, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote: > > > > > Em Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 02:06:34PM -0500, Tomas Konir escreveu: > > > > On Tue, 2 Dec 2003, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote: > > > > > > > > > Em Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 12:54:36PM +0100, Ionut Georgescu escreveu: > > > > > > I can only second that. We've been using XFS here since the days of > > > > > > 2.4.0-testxx and the only problems we've had were sitting between the > > > > > > chair and the keyboard. > > > > > > > > > > So if there is no problems at all using it as a patch why add this to a > > > > > kernel that is phasing out? > > > > > > > > Because me and others are wasting our time when merging xfs with other > > > > patches such as grsecurity. XFS in kernel can save our time. The question > > > > is, that if JFS and other FS's are in kernel, why not XFS ? > > > > > > Why not ReiserFS4? Or DRBD? Or... :-) > > > > ReiserFS4 is stable ? very new information for me. > > Well, some people may well consider :-) But yes, this was my fault, I should > have just mentioned DRBD and other patches in similar situation, just look > at any recent 2.4 rpm from any distro.
Distro kernels contains many features, but a lot of bloat :-( no one pure distro kernel can be used as server kernel. (only my opinion)
> > > > Like I was discussing with Marcelo: if he stated that 2.4 will get in deep > > > freeze, it means that the external patches for this kernel will not have to > > > be maintained, or the maintainance will be very very small, and related to > > > things that are _outside_ the kernel. > > > > 2.2 external patches are not related to other's now. > > 2.2? > > > Why 2.4 patches will be ? > > Havent you mentioned grsecurity?
grsecurity is good example. I have to merge cca 10 rejects, when adding to linux-xfs kernel.
> > > This discussion is not about unstable testing feature, but about rock > > stable filesystem, used by many. Including in kernel can help without > > It is about adding a new feature, whatever is the opinion of people about > its stability or not, in a kernel that is being phased out.
agree but this feature is wanted by many and still rejected without serious reasons.
> > stability compromise. I think, that there is no reliable argument to > > not include XFS into main kernel. > > But it is included, in 2.6, where it seems to be showing problems, as > mentioned by Linus some days ago, I for one was using it and stopped, switched > to ext3 and have had no problems since.
2.6 is still unstable now. I'm using -test10 on my workstation, but it takes minimally an half year to use it on server. I can't use ext3 on server, because of missing features such as ACL, dump (with acl's), built in qouta and for last much different speed on SMP machine.
> > But hey, take this discussion to lkml, there more people will be able to > discuss with us :-)
roger cc: to linux-kernel
MOJE
-- Konir Tomas Czech Republic Brno ICQ 25849167
- 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/
| |