Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*XFS\s+to\s+main\s+kernel\s+source\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*XFS\s+to\s+main\s+kernel\s+source\s*$/: 66 ]

Total 66 documents matching your query.

1. XFS to main kernel source (score: 1): Author: Narancs v1 <narancs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2001 20:12:48 +0200 (CEST); Hi all! First of all, I want to thank you the great job you do to Linux! Linux is a great OS/kernel and XFS is my favorite FS since I tried it. Problems: When will be the XFS patch integrated to main; /archives/xfs/2001-09/msg00470.html (9,161 bytes)
2. Re: XFS to main kernel source (score: 1): Author: "Steve Wolfe" <nw@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2001 12:17:10 -0600; (snip) (snip) 2.4.9 feedback I'd just like to add, for the record, that while I really do love XFS, because of things like the above statement from Steve Lord, I really can't use it on my production; /archives/xfs/2001-09/msg00472.html (8,530 bytes)
3. Re: XFS to main kernel source (score: 1): Author: Steve Lord <lord@xxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2001 13:31:18 -0500; Well, since the changes are being made to the Linux VM, not to XFS, if I was in your situation I would ask myself if I should be running recent 2.4 kernels in production with any filesystem. I am no; /archives/xfs/2001-09/msg00473.html (9,452 bytes)
4. Re: XFS to main kernel source (score: 1): Author: Mike Burger <mburger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2001 14:32:35 -0400 (EDT); Can I ask which Linux distribution you're running? The reason I ask is that SGI, as you probably well know, has a full Red Hat setup, based currently on RH7.1. It installs wonderfully, and you can th; /archives/xfs/2001-09/msg00475.html (9,689 bytes)
5. Re: XFS to main kernel source (score: 1): Author: Seth Mos <knuffie@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2001 20:53:29 +0200; (snip) FAQ (snip) Worrysome combination. 2.4.9 feedback I'd just like to add, for the record, that while I really do love XFS, because of things like the above statement from Steve Lord, I really can; /archives/xfs/2001-09/msg00478.html (10,941 bytes)
6. Re: XFS to main kernel source (score: 1): Author: "Steve Wolfe" <nw@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2001 12:58:08 -0600; But supposedly, things get tested before released in an official kernel version. While I haven't had problems with the functionality, but I've run into a number of problems in the patching/compiling; /archives/xfs/2001-09/msg00479.html (9,712 bytes)
7. Re: XFS to main kernel source (score: 1): Author: Mike Burger <mburger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2001 15:13:44 -0400 (EDT); Luckily, he also copied it to the kernel mailing list.; /archives/xfs/2001-09/msg00480.html (10,015 bytes)
8. Re: XFS to main kernel source (score: 1): Author: Bryan-TheBS-Smith <b.j.smith@xxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2001 15:52:32 -0400; If you stick with select, well-tested kernels, you shouldn't have any issues. I've learned *NOT* to use the latest kernel from experience dating back to 2.0. I'd rather "hold back" and use RedHat/SGI; /archives/xfs/2001-09/msg00481.html (10,551 bytes)
9. Re: XFS to main kernel source (score: 1): Author: Alan Cox <alan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2001 21:02:54 +0100 (BST); I can only speak for -ac but right now I have no plan to tackle the merge except as an "its in 2.5, its ok in 2.5 backport" task; /archives/xfs/2001-09/msg00482.html (9,109 bytes)
10. RE: XFS to main kernel source (score: 1): Author: "Gonyou, Austin" <austin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2001 15:07:48 -0500; Won't there be a lot of changes which need to be made for it to go into 2.5 anyway though beyond just current development? Isn't 2.5 supposed to be "radically" different? -- Austin Gonyou Systems Arc; /archives/xfs/2001-09/msg00483.html (9,768 bytes)
11. Re: XFS to main kernel source (score: 1): Author: Alan Cox <alan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2001 21:14:47 +0100 (BST); Not really. 2.5 will change over time for certain but if anything the 2.5 changes will make it easier. One problem area with XFS is that it duplicates chunks of what should be generic functionality; /archives/xfs/2001-09/msg00484.html (9,617 bytes)
12. Re: XFS to main kernel source (score: 1): Author: Steve Lord <lord@xxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2001 15:16:52 -0500; Since we have your attention - which chunks? One of the frustrations we have had is the lack of feedback from anyone who has looked at XFS. Just interested. Steve; /archives/xfs/2001-09/msg00486.html (9,929 bytes)
13. Re: XFS to main kernel source (score: 1): Author: Alan Cox <alan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2001 21:25:06 +0100 (BST); Send me a current snapshot diff and I'll promise you some feedback. I didnt realise this was an issue Alan; /archives/xfs/2001-09/msg00487.html (9,614 bytes)
14. Re: XFS to main kernel source (score: 1): Author: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2001 22:26:43 +0200; o The whole vnode layer o checks already peformed by the VFS all over the place (just take a look at xfs_rename.c!) o the own quoata code o the hooks for a propritary clusterfs.. My 2 (euro-)cents, C; /archives/xfs/2001-09/msg00488.html (11,442 bytes)
15. Re: XFS to main kernel source (score: 1): Author: Horst von Brand <vonbrand@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2001 16:29:23 -0400; I'd better ask "What is 2.4 missing, so we can finish that up and move on to 2.5" 2.5 will have its own way of finding out what new, shiny, exciting features to acquire... -- Dr. Horst H. von Brand U; /archives/xfs/2001-09/msg00489.html (8,948 bytes)
16. Re: XFS to main kernel source (score: 1): Author: Alexander Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2001 16:40:51 -0400 (EDT); Locking. There is a _lot_ of duplication between fs/namei.c and fs/xfs/* - you definitely don't need most of the stuff you do with locks there. I understand that some of that stuff may be needed for; /archives/xfs/2001-09/msg00490.html (9,897 bytes)
17. Re: XFS to main kernel source (score: 1): Author: Alan Cox <alan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2001 21:50:00 +0100 (BST); <Cynic mode on> Linus 2.4.10pre is definitely 2.5 in disguise </Cynic>; /archives/xfs/2001-09/msg00491.html (8,357 bytes)
18. Re: XFS to main kernel source (score: 1): Author: Steve Lord <lord@xxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2001 16:31:37 -0500; 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; /archives/xfs/2001-09/msg00493.html (11,175 bytes)
19. Re: XFS to main kernel source (score: 1): Author: Andreas Dilger <adilger@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2001 21:12:21 -0600; Actually not. The quotas in ext3 are transactional as well. It's just that the "ext3" journal layer allows nested transactions, so it is possible to start a write transaction, call into the journal c; /archives/xfs/2001-09/msg00499.html (11,422 bytes)
20. Re: XFS to main kernel source (score: 1): Author: Steve Lord <lord@xxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2001 22:25:20 -0500; OK, good point, but doing a major rewrite of XFS to use a different transaction mechanism is not really on the cards, plus we have on disk compatibility with the Irix version to consider. Steve; /archives/xfs/2001-09/msg00500.html (10,272 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 20
Page: [1] [2] [3] [4]