From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S266333AbUH0P5l (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Aug 2004 11:57:41 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S266324AbUH0P5h (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Aug 2004 11:57:37 -0400 Received: from jade.spiritone.com ([216.99.193.136]:51642 "EHLO jade.spiritone.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S266333AbUH0PsC (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Aug 2004 11:48:02 -0400 Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 08:47:41 -0700 From: "Martin J. Bligh" To: Christoph Hellwig , David Howells cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] CacheFS - general filesystem cache Message-ID: <70360000.1093621660@[10.10.2.4]> In-Reply-To: <20040827112813.A30219@infradead.org> References: <17777.1093566183@redhat.com> <20040827112813.A30219@infradead.org> X-Mailer: Mulberry/2.2.1 (Linux/x86) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org >> I've packaged my generic filesystem cache filesystem into patches and also >> produced patches for my AFS filesystem to use it. Work is also in progress to >> alter the NFS client use this interface too, and I think the ISO9660 >> filesystem could also benefit. >> >> I've put a tarball of them on my Red Hat webpage because one of them is rather >> large. If you grab: >> >> http://people.redhat.com/~dhowells/cachefs/cachefs-patches.tar.bz2 > > Umm, a tarball is the worst possible distribution method for patches. Nah, they have rpms as well ... those are even worse ;-) M.