In message <Pine.LNX.4.64.0710250705510.9811@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Hugh Dickins writes: > On Thu, 25 Oct 2007, Pekka Enberg wrote: > With unionfs also fixed, we don't know of an absolute need for this > patch (and so, on that basis, the !wbc->for_reclaim case could indeed > be removed very soon); but as I see it, the unionfs case has shown > that it's time to future-proof this code against whatever stacking > filesystems come along. Hence I didn't mention the names of such > filesystems in the source comment. I think "future proof" for other stackable f/s is a good idea, esp. since many of the stackable f/s we've developed and distributed over the past 10 years are in some use in various places: gzipfs, avfs, tracefs, replayfs, ncryptfs, versionfs, wrapfs, i3fs, and more (see www.filesystems.org). Cheers, Erez. - 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
