From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 21 Sep 2001 02:00:21 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 21 Sep 2001 02:00:11 -0400 Received: from ns.caldera.de ([212.34.180.1]:3026 "EHLO ns.caldera.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Fri, 21 Sep 2001 01:59:52 -0400 Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2001 07:58:54 +0200 From: Christoph Hellwig To: Steve Lord Cc: 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 Message-ID: <20010921075854.A11617@caldera.de> Mail-Followup-To: Christoph Hellwig , Steve Lord , Alan Cox , "Gonyou, Austin" , narancs@narancs.tii.matav.hu, linux-xfs@oss.sgi.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <200109202131.f8KLVbB19795@jen.americas.sgi.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <200109202131.f8KLVbB19795@jen.americas.sgi.com>; from lord@sgi.com on Thu, Sep 20, 2001 at 04:31:37PM -0500 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Sep 20, 2001 at 04:31:37PM -0500, Steve Lord wrote: > > 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). I completly understand SGI's reson to do this - but yet I don't want to see such code in the mainline for obvios reasons.. > > 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. Again I understand SGI's reasoning - but such hooks are usually not considered to be a good thing line. Christoph -- Of course it doesn't work. We've performed a software upgrade.