On Thu, Dec 06, 2012 at 07:06:45AM -0500, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > Also the only conference outcome I remember is that everyone at LSF > except for Ted basically said "no fucking way". > At LSF, that's correct. And as a result, the people who need this -- Google and Tao Bao -- have decided to keep the patch as an out-of-tree patch, much like the Android wakelock patch was out of tree, and for similar reasons --- because the community has rejected the functionality. At this point, I've only asked that the bit be reserved, so we don't have to worry about codepoint collisions. (We'd have the same issue with an ioctl, BTW --- we would need to reserve an ioctl number to avoid collisions, although granted there are ways to cleverly choose an ioctl number that would reduce the chance of collisions even if it isn't formally reserved.) Note that this is not a kernel fork the same way the android wakelock is not a kernel fork. It's an out of tree patch which has been rejected by upstream. - Ted -- 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
