On Jun 09, 2006 18:49 -0400, Valdis.Kletnieks@xxxxxx wrote: > On Fri, 09 Jun 2006 23:22:23 +0400, Alex Tomas said: > > what if proposed patch is safer than an average fix? > > (given that it's just out of usage unless enabled) > > Those are the *dangerous* patches, because they usually contain bugs > that weren't tripped over by the 6 people who enabled it while it > was bouncing around in the -mm tree.... Umm, in case you didn't know, the extent patch which is the primary issue of discussion here (not the whole 64-bit clean changes though) were run for MILLIONS of hours under very high IO load on the largest computer systems in the world for the last year or so. It is easy to get millions of hours of usage if there are thousands of servers running this code... Yes, I have no doubt there will be bugs in the code because the usage pattern is different for different environments, but we aren't advocating the inclusion of something major like this that was just written yesterday in someone's basement. Cheers, Andreas -- Andreas Dilger Principal Software Engineer Cluster File Systems, Inc. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
