definitely. Unless XFS is in the mainline kernel (marked as
experimantal if necessary) it will not get good exposure.
The most important (only) reason I do not use it (and recommend our
customers against using it) is that at the moment it is impossible to
track both the kernel and XFS at the same time. This is a shame, because
I think that for some application XFS is superior to the other
alternatives (can be said about the other alternatives to :-).
> That said, it is important to
> consider the technical reasons to include XFS in 2.5 or not; if this
> inclusion could cause some troubles, if XFS fits the requirements
> Linus asks for the inclusion and what impact the inclusion would have on
> the kernel (Think to JFS as a good example of an easy inclusion, with low
> impact).
>
so, what were the main obstacles again? The VFS layer?
Martin
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------ Martin Knoblauch | email: Martin.Knoblauch@TeraPort.de TeraPort GmbH | Phone: +49-89-510857-309 C+ITS | Fax: +49-89-510857-111 http://www.teraport.de | Mobile: +49-170-4904759 - 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/