From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 20 Sep 2001 17:30:29 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 20 Sep 2001 17:30:19 -0400 Received: from rj.sgi.com ([204.94.215.100]:13703 "EHLO rj.sgi.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 20 Sep 2001 17:30:10 -0400 Message-Id: <200109202131.f8KLVbB19795@jen.americas.sgi.com> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.2 06/23/2000 with nmh-1.0.4 To: hch@sgi.com, Steve Lord , Alan Cox , "Gonyou, Austin" , narancs@narancs.tii.matav.hu, linux-xfs@oss.sgi.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: XFS to main kernel source In-Reply-To: Message from Christoph Hellwig of "Thu, 20 Sep 2001 22:26:43 +0200." <20010920222643.A7267@caldera.de> Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2001 16:31:37 -0500 From: Steve Lord Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > On Thu, Sep 20, 2001 at 03:16:52PM -0500, Steve Lord wrote: > > Since we have your attention - which chunks? One of the frustrations we hav > e > > had is the lack of feedback from anyone who has looked at XFS. > > o The whole vnode layer Two answers here - economics and code stability. This is a filesystem which has been worked on by people being payed to do so by a corporation, therefore there is a budget (long since blown). It was simpler and hence cheaper to wrap XFS in a conversion layer than to rework the code down into the bowels of the filesystem. Then the stability part of it, we started with a working filesystem, from an engineering standpoint it made more sense to keep as much of the existing code base intact as possible - the less surgery performed the better in terms of keeping things running, and making it easy to take enhancements and fixes made in the Irix base into the Linux code (we don't do it the other way around). > o checks already peformed by the VFS all over the place > (just take a look at xfs_rename.c!) I think I will answer this one more slowly and in response to Al Viro's email. But that economics/stability thing comes into it again. > o the own quoata code XFS quotas are transactional, when space is added to a file the quota is adjusted in the same transaction. It is fairly hard to do this without your own quota code. > o the hooks for a propritary clusterfs.. Well we have to make money on something you know.... and in reality there are not a lot of them in the filesystem. Thanks Steve > > My 2 (euro-)cents, > > Christoph > > -- > Of course it doesn't work. We've performed a software upgrade.