Messages in this thread | ![/](/images/icornerl.gif) | | Date | Thu, 10 Jul 2003 08:53:25 +0100 | From | Christoph Hellwig <> | Subject | Re: RFC: what's in a stable series? |
| |
On Wed, Jul 09, 2003 at 09:16:45PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > I reverted the direct IO patches because hch complained on me that they > > change the direct IO API, and we really dont want that kind of > > change, IMHO. > > OK, we're on to a specific case. Albeit a very small one. > > I think Trond's direct IO change was right. The impact on out-of-tree code > is infinitesimal. Stick a #define O_DIRECT_NEEDS_A_FILP in the header and > let the XFS guys write a four-line patch.
Oh, we have that patch even without the feature define in say -ac and -aa but it's just horrible to have APIs silently change behind you. Especially when just changing a function arg where you only get one more warning in the forrest of warnings produced by gcc 3.3 on a 2.4 tree..
> Or merge XFS.
That's of course a good idea [1] but doesn't really help in this discussion. There's other filesystems like ocfs or opengfs that have the same kind of problems.
[1] and with the new quota code and vmap() we're almost there..
- 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/
| ![\](/images/icornerr.gif) |