On 5/29/13 2:01 PM, Ben Myers wrote: > Hi Dave, > > On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 09:54:24AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: <giant snip> >> I'd much prefer that we don't have to add code to 3.11 to reject any >> CRC-enabled filesystem without any feature bits set because we don't >> support a broken remote attr format that was fixed weeks before 3.10 >> released but was not allowed to be fixed in 3.10. That's just crazy >> from any release management perspective you care to look at it from. > > So would I. > >> Ben, if the problem is that you can't review all the fixes in a timely >> manner, then we can fix that. I'm sure that Mark, Eric and Brian can >> help review the code if this is the sticking point. > > Reviews are always welcome... But it won't matter for the sake of this argument, sounds like? <another snip> > A worse outcome is that I pull in this code and something goes very > wrong for the thousands of users of 3.10 with existing non-crc XFS > filesystems. A feature bit and some inconvenience for a few XFS > developers and testers is a safer choice. Your concern (rightly) seems to be stability for non-crc users, so: I'll review these patches with a special eye towards if/how they affect any non-crc codepaths. If it's wholly contained in crc code, you can merge them without fear. Sound like a deal? -Eric > Regards, > Ben > > _______________________________________________ > xfs mailing list > xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx > http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs > _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
