Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 15 Oct 1999 15:03:57 +0200 (MET_DST) | From | David Weinehall <> | Subject | Re: HFS, QNXFS |
| |
On Fri, 15 Oct 1999, Alan Cox wrote:
> > > Both HFS and QNXFS has been in the kernel for quite some time, yet both > > > are flagged Experimental. > > > > > > Is this still the case? Are they considered more unstable than other > > > filesystems in the kernel? If they are considered unstable, HFS should > > > be made if [ "$CONFIG_EXPERIMENTAL" ] ... > > > > I've used both and yes they are both still buggy and should remain marked > > as such. Is anybody still actively maintaining them? > > HFS has a maintaier and seems pretty much rock solid in 2.2. The QNXfs is > still very experimental. Its a read only "solves the migration from QNX > to Linux" file system - no more.
My suggestion then would be to remove (EXPERIMENTAL) from HFS and let it stay for QNXfs. Comments, anyone?
/David Weinehall _ _ // David Weinehall <tao@acc.umu.se> /> Northern lights wander \\ // Project MCA Linux hacker // Dance across the winter sky // \> http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/ </ Full colour fire </
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |