Re: HFS+ (MacOS) in contrast to EXT2 (Linux-i386)
On Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 10:02:09AM +0200, Michel D?nzer wrote:
> Mike Fedyk wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 02:21:37AM +0200, Michel D?nzer wrote:
> > > Laurent de Segur wrote:
> > >
> > > > It's too bad that the XFS module (at least on ppc) is not part of
> > > > the pre-compiled kernel image (ReiserFS is),
> > >
> > > Not really, you still need patches (at least Alan Cox's) to use
> > > ReiserFS on big endian systems.
> >
> > Do the -ac kernels compile and work on ppc now?
>
> Dunno, maybe his patches apply to e.g. benh's tree though?
>
Hmm, I'll have to test...
>
> > > XFS can't be merged into 2.4 because there are too many changes, but
> > > it will hopefully be merged in during 2.5 .
> > >
> > DevFS was merged late in 2.3
> > ReiserFS was merged in 2.4.1
> > A mostly new VM was merged in 2.4.10pre11
> >
> > I think XFS and ext3 may have good chances of a merge.
>
> ext3 maybe, but have you actually looked at an XFS patch? It replaces
> half of the lowlevel filesystem code, not exactly what's supposed to
> happen in a stable kernel series...
>
I agree with ext3, it will probably be merged into 2.4. It's already in
-ac, and has worked great with 2.2 and 2.4 for me on x86.
No, haven't looked at or used XFS, sorry. But if what you say is true, then
the merge probably won't happen in 2.4. Does the XFS team expect their
lowlevel code to be integrated into 2.5?
> > Who can say when the major VM changes were merged into 2.3? Wasn't
> > there a lot done in 2.4-test?
>
> Odd minor numbers (2.4.0-testx were actually rather 2.3.x) mean
> development kernels, big changes are supposed to happen there.
>
Yes, I undersatand... I'm just saying that there were major changes late in
the dev cycle, early in the stable cycle, and another right in the middle of
the stable cycle.
Not that there wasn't enough reason for the VM merge with Andrea... It just
looks like there is a possibility of a few more large merges.
Mike
Reply to: