Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 27 Jun 2006 10:35:44 +0200 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: GFS2 and DLM |
| |
* Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Jun 2006 08:33:39 +0200 > Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote: > > > Isnt this whole episode highly hypocritic to begin with? > > Might be, but that's not relevant to GFS2's suitability.
it is relevant to a certain degree, because it creates a (IMO) false impression of merging showstoppers. After months of being in -mm, and after addressing all issues that were raised (and there was a fair amount of review activity December last year iirc), one week prior the close of the merge window a 'huge' list of issues are raised. (after belovingly calling the GFS2 code a "huge mess", to create a positive and productive tone for the review discussion i guess.)
So far in my reading there are only 2 serious ones in that list:
- tty_* use in cluster-aware quota.c. Firstly, ocfs2 doesnt do quota - which is fair enough, but this also means that there was no in-tree filesystem to base stuff off. Secondly, the tty_* use was inherited from fs/quota.c - hardly something i'd consider a fatal sin. Anyway, despite the mitigating factors it is an arguably lame thing and it should be (and will be) fixed.
- GFP_NOFAIL: most other journalling filesystems seem to be doing this or worse. Fixing it is _hard_. Suddenly this becomes a showstopper? Huh?
(the "use the generic facilities" arguments are only valid if the generic facilities can be used as-is, and if they are just optimal as the one implemented by the filesystem.)
Ingo - 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/
| |