Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 19, 2004 at 10:11:32AM +0100, David Weinehall wrote:
>
>>On Wed, Feb 18, 2004 at 02:51:32PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
>>
>>>Christoph Hellwig <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>I don't understand why IBM is pushing this dubious change right now,
>>>
>>>It isn't a dubious change, on technical grounds. It is reasonable for a
>>>distributed filesystem to want to be able to shoot down pte's which map
>>>sections of pagecache. Just as it is reasonable for the filesystem to be
>>>able to shoot down the pagecache itself.
>>>
>>>We've exported much lower-level stuff than this, because some in-kernel
>>>module happened to use it.
>>
>>Probably not always the right choice, though... I highly suspect we
>>far to much of our intestines are easily available.
>
>
> Again, the whole point of the patch is to -reduce- the degree of
> intestinal export.
>
> Thanx, Paul
Paul, this still doesn't answer why GPFS can't be released under the GPL.
If this has been answered, I'd love to see a pointer to which archives
in which I should search.