On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 18:23:00 -0500 "David A. Bandel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 19:12:02 -0600 > Collins Richey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 18:18:09 -0500 > > "David A. Bandel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > > Hash: SHA1 > > > > > > On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 15:35:54 -0600 > > > Collins Richey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > [snip] > > > > > > > > > > > No flame bait intended. I have no objection to xfs; I may even > > > > try it some day. "Most people who care about their data ..." is, > > > > of course, flame bait as well. The one thing I won't do (based > > > > on the comments I found in the xfs archives) is use an > > > > experimental kernel and expect from xfs developers the "amazing > > > > amount of patience" you have experienced, most especially not if > > > > I'm running the accursed distro. > > > > > > What exactly are you referring to as an "experimental" kernel? > > > The only experimental kernels I'm aware of are some of the hacked > > > kernels Gentoo uses. Both RH and Debian use relatively > > > conservative patches. I personally use a vanilla kernel. But > > > 2.6.7 (the latest) isn't any more experimental than the latest > > > 2.4.x kernel. > > > > The three most common that I see on the gentoo listings > > (information, not complaints, interestingly enough) are the mm, ck, > > and love kernels probably in that order from experimental to just > > plain wild. Two of the complaints I reviewed from xfs referenced > > these. mm is typically a little bit ahead of the vanilla kernels, > > and feeds back into the vanilla kernels, as I understand it. > > Yes, but kernel patches, even those often seemingly unrelated, > interfere with each other. So complaining to XFS developers about > non-vanilla kernels is wrong. You should ask the mm, ck, and/or love > kernel maintainers what they did to toast XFS and how can it be fixed. > If I were an XFS developer, that's the reply you'd get from me - my > code works, mm/ck/love screwed it up, tell them. > > mm may feed back, but only after certain problems are fixed. Linux is > very good about merging patches to ensure there are no code clashes. > I agree for the most part, but my suspicious nature leads me to suspect that it may not necessarily always be the case that these experimental kernels have "toasted XFS." There is always the possibility that something in XFS is already toast and just waiting for a particular code path to be opened that isn't always exercised. Sure my code works, but is there an open path to disaster waiting to be opened later? As a file system developer, I would want to know that. I realize I'm tilting at windmills, because XFS (or most other developers) aren't going to take the extra step to learn whose code is toast. -- /\/\ ( CR ) Collins Richey \/\/ fly Independence Air - they run Linux _______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsub/Pause/Etc -> http://mail.linux-sxs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/general
