Not really, our policy has been much more restrictive than the rest of the
kernel. Look at the patches we didn't send in.
>
> And I don't begin to comprehend your not sending in the lost disk space
> after crash bug fix (I assume it is what you mean when you refer to lost
> files after a crash, because I know of no lost files after a crash bug,
> please phrase things more carefully), and it really annoys me and the
> users, frankly. Why you consider that a feature is beyond me.
The patch is a _huge_ change to the way files are deleted and truncated, to
what happens during mount, and to the way transactions work. It is
effectively a format extension, and must be verified against both 2.2.x
kernels and 2.4.x kernels, in both disk formats.
Before I even consider introducing a change of this size, I want to be as
sure as I can the rest of the code is stable. It is the only way we can
debug it and stay sane. Even after I release the code, I won't want it in
an ac series for a while. It does much more harm than good if it somehow
ruins compatibility with an older kernel, especially in 2.4.x.
Yes, it is a bug fix. But, it is a very different kind of bug fix than
something that corrupts files at random, or something that doesn't get
buffers to disk at the right time.
I won't pretend the fix isn't important, but I won't allow larger changes
to ruin the progress we've made so far.
-chris
-
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/