On Mon, 11 Oct 1999, Guest section DW wrote:
> > Somebody had touched qnx/inode.c in 2.3.19
> > maybe they will show up and tell what is going on?
>
> That was me.
> I noticed that if one had qnx4 compiled into the kernel
> and did a mount without explicit -t option of some fs
> that came later in the list then the system would crash.
>
> In other words, already the mount attempt is dangerous.
> The check for the correct boot signature was #if 0'd out
> and I reinstalled it, so that nobody would get into that
> code by accident.
Well, it means that the thing is not just orphaned, it was never maintained
by the authors (from the moment when they got it into official tree, that
is). And it was more than a year ago. Ewww... ;-<<
IMO the only question being whether we are getting the documentation and
completing the thing (then it joins minix/sysv/etc.) or simply
bitbucketing it. If it will be completed.. well, maintaining it will not
be a problem. If it will be rm -rf'ed - even less trouble.
OK, who has the contact address of the authors? ISTR them Cc'd several
times in l-k postings and they never replied. As far as I'm concerned if
there is no way to get the information on fs layout - fs/qnx4 is goner.
I'm adding the last remaining address from their README to Cc (2 of 3 are
already there) and if there will be no reply until the end of October I'll
submit RFCruftectomy to Linus. I don't think that usual policy (warn
during the next stable release, remove in the next unstable) makes sense -
the thing had been orphaned from the very beginning and _that_ covers end
of 2.1 and the whole 2.2.
Down, not across.
Al
