On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 8:18 AM, Martin Steigerwald <Martin@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Did you actually *read* the thread, Linus? I did. And I actually understood it. Unlike some people. > Dave provided technical reasons. > > First in the patch description and then in: > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/11/26/700 No. That technical argument is an argument *against* changing the current "specific bit meaning" reservation into a "generic fs private use" bit. The current one actually has a specific meaning (documented in the name, if very little else), and is *not* some kind of "generic fs private use" bit. So the email you quote was actually an argument against changing the current status quo. And there is an actual technical reason for the current situation, described in the original commit. Now, people may not *like* the fact that the bit is commonly used out-of-tree (and used that way, rather than with an ioctl), but it's a fact. And quite frankly, ioctl's aren't any better. They are just another different way of messing things up. Everything else in that thread has basically been whining about "I don't like the current reality". Yes, people can argue that "process" is about technical issues too, but let's be honest: our process is fluid. Not everything gets reviewed on the mailing list, and people *do* talk about things face-to-face at conferences. And none of that changes the current actual situation. Linus -- 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
