On 8/31/17 10:31 AM, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 03:30:19PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: >> On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 08:43:21AM -0400, Brian Foster wrote: >>> FWIW, I don't really have a strong opinion. To me, removing experimental >>> means we feel the code has stabilized long enough in principle, there >>> are no significant problems (i.e., corruption/crash vectors) that we are >>> aware of and the feature is complete (full userspace tool support, etc). >>> The in-core extent list thing seems like more of a general problem to me >> >> Agreed so far. > > <nod> Dave? Eric? Any perspective you'd like to offer? :) This is a bit of a naiive question, but how many applications are out there that can be used with reflink right now? This would obviously delay things a bit, but I had considered writing something up for LWN or Fedora Planet or $WHATEVER describing these new xfs features, how they can be used, and encourage some early-adopter testing. Try to get some buzz going and some real-world use. It's always a catch 22; nobody uses it until it's marked stable, but we never know if it's really stable until people outside the development community use it. ;) As for the allocation issues w/ the in core extent list, yeah, that worries me. -Eric -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
