On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 12:47:30PM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 11:21:21AM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote: > > Here I agree. HSM is a generic enough concept, and I think this > > interface's API w.r.t. HSM is well-enough defined that there's no reason > > not to go ahead & put it in now, IMHO. > > But there is no such thing as HSM support anywher near mainline. Call > me a dickhead, but I'm 100% against adding anything helping HSM until > people get their act together to actually add HSM support. It's > something really useful that we should have, and not something that > should be in really grotty out of tree codebases. I would love to see HSM in mainline too, but this is a single flag that belongs in a well-defined interface. It isn't the place to fight over. Joel -- Life's Little Instruction Book #226 "When someone hugs you, let them be the first to let go." Joel Becker Principal Software Developer Oracle E-mail: joel.becker@xxxxxxxxxx Phone: (650) 506-8127 -- 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
