| 1 |
At 11:13 24-10-2002 -0500, Brandon Low wrote: |
| 2 |
>The XFS patch is writtten very badly and 'touches' many files outside of |
| 3 |
>the filesystem specific code, it is therefore very difficult to patch it |
| 4 |
>against modified kernels such as the gentoo kernel. I and the other |
| 5 |
>kernel developers at gentoo are working to get XFS into the gentoo-sources |
| 6 |
>again, and currently have a testing patch that is part of |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
Great! |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
>Hopefully as SGI improves their patch and brings it |
| 11 |
>closer to in sync with the main kernel trees, we will have less trouble |
| 12 |
>supporting it in the gentoo-sources. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
XFS is already merged in since 2.5.36. The integration with the 2.4 tree is |
| 15 |
a ongoing project. It might be integrated into 2.4 in the future when |
| 16 |
marcelo thinks the time is right. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Note that work is currently underway for a 1.2 release of XFS which would |
| 19 |
solve a number of these problems. It fixes a lot of bugs that were |
| 20 |
originally in the 1.1 release and also adds a number of new features that |
| 21 |
benefit people with md raid 5, LVM, LVM2 en EVMS. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
>As for preempt with XFS, most of the major performance enhancing patches |
| 24 |
>are dropped from xfs-sources when it is created from the gentoo-sources |
| 25 |
>because they tend to cause conflicts of various sorts. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
That sums it up nicely, both XFS and preempt "hook" into the VM and a |
| 28 |
slight patch mistake, typo or other mishap can have rather annoying results ;-/ |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
>Hope this clears some things up, |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
Yes it does. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
Cheers |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
-- |
| 37 |
Seth |
| 38 |
It might just be your lucky day, if you only knew. |
Archives