Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754703AbYL2EC0 (ORCPT ); Sun, 28 Dec 2008 23:02:26 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752407AbYL2ECP (ORCPT ); Sun, 28 Dec 2008 23:02:15 -0500 Received: from smtp1.linux-foundation.org ([140.211.169.13]:42025 "EHLO smtp1.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752307AbYL2ECO (ORCPT ); Sun, 28 Dec 2008 23:02:14 -0500 Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2008 20:01:34 -0800 From: Andrew Morton To: Stephen Rothwell Cc: dhowells@redhat.com, Bernd Schubert , nfsv4@linux-nfs.org, hch@infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, steved@redhat.com, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, rwheeler@redhat.com, linux-next@vger.kernel.org, Trond Myklebust Subject: Re: Pull request for FS-Cache, including NFS patches Message-Id: <20081228200134.426bf203.akpm@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: <20081229144533.4a0ab696.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> References: <8930.1229560221@redhat.com> <20081218142420.GA16728@infradead.org> <20081218123601.11810b7f.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <200812190007.34581.bernd.schubert@fastmail.fm> <20081218152616.a24c013f.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20081219110539.7e7e230c.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> <20081229144533.4a0ab696.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> X-Mailer: Sylpheed 2.4.8 (GTK+ 2.12.5; x86_64-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 List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1364 Lines: 38 On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 14:45:33 +1100 Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi David, > > On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 11:05:39 +1100 Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > > > Given the ongoing discussions around FS-Cache, I have removed it from > > linux-next. Please ask me to include it again (if sensible) once some > > decision has been reached about its future. > > What was the result of discussions around FS-Cache? There was none. Dan Muntz's question: Solaris has had CacheFS since ~1995, HPUX had a port of it since ~1997. I'd be interested in evidence of even a small fraction of Solaris and/or HPUX shops using CacheFS. I am aware of customers who thought it sounded like a good idea, but ended up ditching it for various reasons (e.g., CacheFS just adds overhead if you almost always hit your local mem cache). was an very very good one. Seems that instead of answering it, we've decided to investigate the fate of those who do not learn from history. > I ask because it > reappeared in linux-next today via the nfs tree (merged into that on Dec > 24 and 25) ... oh. -- 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/