NFS_FSCACHE still depends on EXPERIMENTAL?

NFS_FSCACHE still depends on EXPERIMENTAL?

[Christian Kujau]

Hi,

there's currently an open Ubuntu bug[0], with the intent to compile 
NFS_FSCACHE (and possibly AFS_FSCACHE, 9P_FSCACHE) into the standard 
Ubuntu kernel. However, since *_FSCACHE still depends on EXPERIMENTAL, 
this won't happen.

I'd like to know if the EXPERIMENTAL tag is still needed for these 
options and if so, what would be needed to remove this tag. Removing this 
tag would allow Ubuntu to include these features into its kernel, possibly 
allowing an even greater userbase to test these features, hopefully providing 
feedback.

Thanks,
Christian.

[0] https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/440522/comments/5
-- 
BOFH excuse #259:

Someone's tie is caught in the printer, and if anything else gets printed, he'll be in it too.

Re: NFS_FSCACHE still depends on EXPERIMENTAL?

[Arjan van de Ven]

On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 13:35:39 -0800 (PST)
Christian Kujau <lists@nerdbynature.de> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> there's currently an open Ubuntu bug[0], with the intent to compile 
> NFS_FSCACHE (and possibly AFS_FSCACHE, 9P_FSCACHE) into the standard 
> Ubuntu kernel. However, since *_FSCACHE still depends on
> EXPERIMENTAL, this won't happen.


since the EXPERIMENTAL flag more or less means nothing, the
"it is marked with the flag so we don't do it" is reasoning based on
more or less nothing...

-- 
Arjan van de Ven 	Intel Open Source Technology Centre
For development, discussion and tips for power savings, 
visit http://www.lesswatts.org

Re: NFS_FSCACHE still depends on EXPERIMENTAL?

[Christian Kujau]

On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 at 14:30, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> since the EXPERIMENTAL flag more or less means nothing, the
> "it is marked with the flag so we don't do it" is reasoning based on
> more or less nothing...

Understood, but...if EXPERIMENTAL "more or less means nothing" (is this a 
general consensus?), why is the flag still used at all? IOW, would a patch 
removing all EXPERIMENTAL flags from all(!) options be accepted?

Thanks,
Christian.
-- 
BOFH excuse #160:

non-redundant fan failure