Hey Eric, On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 02:27:18PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote: > 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? Reviews will certainly help... > > 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? ...but my primary concern is the content of the patches. If we can show that a given patch is relevant, of low risk to non-crc users, and has been adequately tested, I'm game. Thanks, Ben _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
