Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 2 Dec 2003 20:11:14 +0000 | From | viro@parcelfa ... | Subject | Re: XFS for 2.4 |
| |
On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 06:23:46PM +0000, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 10:20:37AM -0800, Larry McVoy wrote: > > So what's wrong with asking $VFS_MAINTAINER to refresh Marcelo's memory > > about that? > > There is no such thing as a VFS maintainer. At least Al doesn't want > to be in that position and I guess no one else would qualify (maybe > akpm)
Generally I don't mind doing that kind of work. *However*, in case of XFS I'm very deliberately Not Touching That(tm). Reason: I'm deeply prejudiced against that codebase and (long-standing) situation with its evolution. IOW, I'm not the right guy to ask for comments.
<rant type=tired> XFS codebase is bloated by attempt to imitate VFS interface of inferior operating system (IRIX) and by demand to keep the common codebase between Linux and IRIX versions, IRIX one being the master. And that's not going to change. Moreover, locking in it is such that... well, I would not recommend Larry to look at it - it's a fscking mess that is, AFAICS, long past the point where maintainers had lost any control over it. Basically, all it demonstrates is that with sufficient thrust pigs fly^W^Wanything can be debugged to the point where common codepaths almost never break. </rant>
I'm not touching that animal. I would trust hch or akpm opinion on it, but that's it - I know that they have enough clue to do it right. Aside of that, count me out whenever XFS is concerned. - 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/
| |