On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 04:24:27PM +0100, Manuel Bouyer wrote: > On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 10:03:02AM +0100, Manuel Bouyer wrote: > > It's not "breaking it on the branch", it introducing a backward compat > > problem with the lfs modules, for those who are using the lfs > > module (it's statically built into the kernel by default). > > > > I didn't feel it's a problem, but if it is it can fixed in a simple way: > > I could add the extra parameter to UFS_BALLOC() now, but not use it. > > I'd add that the compat problem is what you run a new ffs module with > an older lfs one. That would mean one has to update only some modules to > run into it.
So, leaving aside the question of whether this kind of code to support a new feature should go in so soon before a release -- it seems to me that the "compatibility problem" here is basically illusory. To see it, you'd have to be running the branch, using LFS as a module (which is not the default configuration), then update to a newer snapshot of the branch, then update only some of your modules, right? So, who cares? Thor
