lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2003]   [Jul]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [more markup]  [less markup]  [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
DateThu, 10 Jul 2003 08:53:25 +0100
FromChristoph Hellwig <>
SubjectRe: RFC: what's in a stable series?
On Wed, Jul 09, 2003 at 09:16:45PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> >  I reverted the direct IO patches because hch complained on me that they
> >  change the direct IO API, and we really dont want that kind of
> >  change, IMHO.> > OK, we're on to a specific case.  Albeit a very small one.
> > I think Trond's direct IO change was right.  The impact on out-of-tree code
> is infinitesimal.  Stick a #define O_DIRECT_NEEDS_A_FILP in the header and
> let the XFS guys write a four-line patch.

Oh, we have that patch even without the feature define in say -ac and -aa
but it's just horrible to have APIs silently change behind you.  Especially
when just changing a function arg where you only get one more warning in
the forrest of warnings produced by gcc 3.3 on a 2.4 tree..

> Or merge XFS.

That's of course a good idea [1] but doesn't really help in this discussion.
There's other filesystems like ocfs or opengfs that have the same kind
of problems.

[1] and with the new quota code and vmap() we're almost there..

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:46    [from the cache]
©2003-2008