On Sun, 2014-06-15 at 14:41 -0700, Daniel Phillips wrote: > On Friday, June 13, 2014 1:20:39 PM PDT, Pavel Machek wrote: > > Hi! > > > > On Fri 2014-06-13 10:49:39, Daniel Phillips wrote: > >> Hi Pavel, On Friday, June 13, 2014 3:32:16 AM PDT, Pavel Machek wrote: > > ... > > > > Actually, would it make sense to have staging/fs/? > > That makes sense to me, if a suitably expert and nonaligned maintainer can > be found Really? We're at the passive aggressive implication that everyone's against you now? Can we get back to the technical discussion, please? > to sign up for a ridiculous amount of largely thankless, but > perhaps fascinating work. Any volunteers? The whole suggestion is a non starter: we can't stage core API changes. Even if we worked out how to do that, the staging trees mostly don't get the type of in-depth expert review that you need anyway. The Cardinal concern has always been the viability page forking and its impact on writeback ... and since writeback is our most difficult an performance sensitive area, the bar to changing it is high. When you presented page forking at LSF/MM in 2013, it didn't even stand up to basic scrutiny before people found unresolved problems: http://lwn.net/Articles/548091/ After lots of prodding, you finally coughed up a patch for discussion: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.file-systems/85619 But then that petered out again. I can't emphasise enough that iterating these threads to a conclusion and reposting interface suggestions is the way to proceed on this ... as far as I can tell from the discussion, the reviewers were making helpful suggestions, even if they didn't like the original interface you proposed. James -- 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
