Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S965021AbVIALCg (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 Sep 2005 07:02:36 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S964933AbVIALCg (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 Sep 2005 07:02:36 -0400 Received: from smtp.osdl.org ([65.172.181.4]:19606 "EHLO smtp.osdl.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932249AbVIALCf (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 Sep 2005 07:02:35 -0400 Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 03:59:39 -0700 From: Andrew Morton To: David Teigland Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-cluster@redhat.com Subject: Re: GFS, what's remaining Message-Id: <20050901035939.435768f3.akpm@osdl.org> In-Reply-To: <20050901104620.GA22482@redhat.com> References: <20050901104620.GA22482@redhat.com> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 1.0.4 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-redhat-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 810 Lines: 25 David Teigland wrote: > > Hi, this is the latest set of gfs patches, it includes some minor munging > since the previous set. Andrew, could this be added to -mm? Dumb question: why? Maybe I was asleep, but I don't recall seeing much discussion or exposition of - Why the kernel needs two clustered fileystems - Why GFS is better than OCFS2, or has functionality which OCFS2 cannot possibly gain (or vice versa) - Relative merits of the two offerings etc. Maybe this has all been thrashed out and agreed to. If so, please remind me. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/