Does reiserfs really meet the "Linux-2.4.x patch submission policy"?
Hi Linus I was very surprised when I checked my local kernel.org mirror this morning, and noticed that the latest 2.4.1 pre-patch had grown to ~180 kb in size. I was even more surprised when I realized that the inclusion of reiserfs was the reason for this. While I am certainly happy for the reiserfs guys, I can't help but wondering if this really had to happen for 2.4.1. In my understanding of your "2.4.x patch sumission guidelines" these large patches was exactly what you wanted to avoid at this point in time. For example, isn't reiserfs to be considered a "more involved patch" the way you described it in this e-mail: On Sat, Jan 06, 2001 at 10:17:02AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > In short, releasing 2.4.0 does not open up the floor to just about > anything. In fact, to some degree it will probably make patches _less_ > likely to be accepted than before, at least for a while. I want to be > absolutely convicned that the basic 2.4.x infrastructure is solid as a > rock before starting to accept more involved patches. Don't get me wrong, I am personally really excited that reiserfs was included. I just thought that you basically wanted 2.4.1 to be "boring". I guess it's the "pushover and wimp" showing his face again:-) -- André Dahlqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Does reiserfs really meet the "Linux-2.4.x patch submission policy"?
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, =?us-ascii?Q?Andr=E9?= Dahlqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >Don't get me wrong, I am personally really excited that reiserfs was >included. I just thought that you basically wanted 2.4.1 to be "boring". Reiserfs inclusion in 2.4.1 was basically the plan for the very beginning: it was so widely known that it was even reported in the press, so I didn't even bother to point out reiserfs as a 2.4.1 patch. That said, I wanted to leave the window open for any showstopper bugs, and have a pure "bug-fixes only" 2.4.1 if needed. I'm actually fairly happy that there haven't been any really serious reports so far. Inclusion of reiserfs is not going to add any bugs for the non-reiserfs case (apart from a stupid merge issue, and now I've watched all the non-reiserfs diffs with a microscope), so in that sense it's safe. Peopel who would have used reiserfs anyway would have gotten more problem reports, so.. If I were you, I'd worry more about the blk-patches from Jens, but they've been around for a long time, and Alan also put them in his tree. Which makes them as safe as any patch we've seen. So I took the approach that "we'll obviously have to put this _somewhere_ in 2.4.x". But that is, at least to me, a potentially bigger worry than reiserfs. (Actually I'm not so much worried that the blk patches themselves would have bugs, as worried about them showing bugs in block drivers by being better at merging requests. Those kinds of bugs we'll have to figure out during 2.4.x anyway though, but it's a case of a latent bug maybe showing up more easily under higher load generated by the blk fixes). Linus - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Does reiserfs really meet the "Linux-2.4.x patch submission policy"?
On Tue, Jan 16, 2001 at 08:55:58PM +0100, Andr? Dahlqvist wrote: > I was very surprised when I checked my local kernel.org mirror this > morning, and noticed that the latest 2.4.1 pre-patch had grown to > ~180 kb in size. I was even more surprised when I realized that the > inclusion of reiserfs was the reason for this. On a related note, how about XFS? It certainly shouldn't go in before the developers are ready, but I've been using it without any problems for awhile now and await its inclusion in the mainstream kernel. PGP signature
