On Mon, Jan 05, 2009 at 08:18:58AM -0500, Chris Mason wrote: > On Mon, 2009-01-05 at 21:07 +1100, Chris Samuel wrote: > > On Sat, 3 Jan 2009 8:01:04 am Andi Kleen wrote: > > > > > When it's in mainline I suspect people will start using it for that. > > > > Some people don't even wait for that. ;-) > > > > Seriously though, if that is a concern can I suggest taking the btrfsdev > > route > > and, if you want a real belt and braces approach, perhaps require it to > > have a > > mandatory mount option specified to successfully mount, maybe "eat_my_data" > > ? > > I think ext4dev made more sense for ext4 because people generally expect > ext* to be stable. Btrfs doesn't quite have the reputation for > stability yet, so I don't feel we need a special -dev name for it.
Old kernel versions may still get booted after brtfs has gotten a reputation for stability. E.g. if I move my / to brtfs in 2.6.34, then one day need to boot back to 2.6.30 to track down some regression, the reminder that I'm moving back to some sort of brtfs dark-ages might be welcome. (Not that I have particularly strong feelings about this.) --b. > > But, if Andrew/Linus prefer that unstable filesystems are tagged with > -dev, I'm happy to do it. > > -chris > > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
