On Mon, Jul 10, 2006 at 08:17:11AM +1000, Nathan Scott wrote: > On Sun, Jul 09, 2006 at 01:56:43PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > On Sun, Jul 09, 2006 at 10:54:54AM +1000, Nathan Scott wrote: > > I don't think theres a valid reason to keep such dead code around. If > > Its not dead code. I will and have been happily removing dead > code. It's 100% dead code in mainline. Please don't push in new code that doesn't do anything. > > There seem to be some rather odd things creeping in lately. > > Er, such as? And why not point these things out at the time, > when people are working on it and committing the changes (and > sending commit mail to xfs@oss), instead of this odd vague > reference now? Sorry about the odd reference. I don't really have time to look up the changes for each TAKE message in cvsweb nevermind especially odd changes seem to not come with TAKE messages sometimes. So I have to look at the changes between two linus releases to see changes. Anyway, the odd changes from 2.6.17 to 2.6.18-rc are: - replacing PFLAGS_* with even more obsfucation - the big renaming of the vnode/vfs thingies. I take this as an official go-ahead that this cruft isn't for irix-compatibility anymore and remove it. I have a nice patch pending that reduces xfs size big time with this (unfortunatly needs a nasty rebase now) - the VN_TRUNC looks interesting. I wish we had a public discussion about this and could see whether or not to handle it at the VFS level - adding a new inherit_nodfrg flag that's not actually used anywhere - addding a VFS_UMOUNT flag that isn't actually used anywhere and shouldn't exist with Linux's unmount handling - 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
