[lkml]   [2002]   [Sep]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: XFS?
On Wed, 2002-09-11 at 11:03, Alan Cox wrote:
> Thats never been the big concern. The problem has always been that XFS
> was very invasive code so it might break stuff for people who dont
> choose to use experimental xfs stuff. Thats slowly improving

Alan -

The last patch Christoph posted against 2.5 is not the least bit
invasive. Excluding documentation and configuration files, these are
the changes:

o 1 new process flag: +#define PF_FSTRANS 0x00100000
o 1 new CTL_VM name: + VM_PAGEBUF=18
o 1 new CTL_FS name: + FS_XFS=17
o 1 exported symbol: +EXPORT_SYMBOL(mark_page_accessed);

and of course an addition to fs/Makefile:
+obj-$(CONFIG_XFS_FS) += xfs/

That's it. The rest is under fs/xfs.

(2.4 is more invasive, but this thread started out talking about XFS in

Eric Sandeen XFS for Linux SGI, Inc. 651-683-3102

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:28    [W:0.085 / U:0.092 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site