On Thu, Sep 01, 2005 at 04:28:30PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote: > > That's GFS. The submission is about a GFS2 that's on-disk incompatible > > to GFS. > > Just like say reiserfs3 and reiserfs4 or ext and ext2 or ext2 and ext3 > then. I think the main point still stands - we have always taken > multiple file systems on board and we have benefitted enormously from > having the competition between them instead of a dictat from the kernel > kremlin that 'foofs is the one true way' I didn't say anything agains a particular fs, just that your previous arguments where utter nonsense. In fact I think having two or more cluster filesystems in the tree is a good thing. Whether the gfs2 code is mergeable is a completely different question, and it seems at least debatable to submit a filesystem for inclusion that's still pretty new. While we're at it I can't find anything describing what gfs2 is about, what is lacking in gfs, what structual changes did you make, etc.. p.s. why is gfs2 in fs/gfs in the kernel tree? -- Linux-cluster@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster
