On Thu, Sep 01, 2005 at 04:28:30PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> > That's GFS. The submission is about a GFS2 that's on-disk incompatible
> > to GFS.
>
> Just like say reiserfs3 and reiserfs4 or ext and ext2 or ext2 and ext3
> then. I think the main point still stands - we have always taken
> multiple file systems on board and we have benefitted enormously from
> having the competition between them instead of a dictat from the kernel
> kremlin that 'foofs is the one true way'
I didn't say anything agains a particular fs, just that your previous
arguments where utter nonsense. In fact I think having two or more cluster
filesystems in the tree is a good thing. Whether the gfs2 code is mergeable
is a completely different question, and it seems at least debatable to
submit a filesystem for inclusion that's still pretty new.
While we're at it I can't find anything describing what gfs2 is about,
what is lacking in gfs, what structual changes did you make, etc..
p.s. why is gfs2 in fs/gfs in the kernel tree?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
| |
 |