[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20080413161014.cb06964c.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2008 16:10:14 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>, hch@...radead.org,
me@...copeland.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] OMFS filesystem version 3
On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 23:49:20 +0100 Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote:
> > I guess I can keep making this point in various ways until someone
> > actually notices it:
> >
> > This filesystem has only 20 users.
>
> At the moment. And that probably exceeds Amiga users, 386 users, some of
> the serial port users, several network card users ...
>
> In the past we've merged drivers for network cards where only two
> existed in the world. Linus has repeatedly stated he wants to see stuff
> people are using getting in.
None of that means that merging this filesystem is the best decision.
> Good clean code that doesn't affect the core
> is good reference material.
The reference block filesystem is ext2 (used to be minixfs) - there is no
need for another.
> I think you are (unusually) the one out of step here ?
I appear to be the only one who is looking at the whole picture.
Merging a new filesystem has costs - I don't need to enumerate them. Do
the benefits of OMFS exceed them?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists