Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755637AbZCJW5X (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Mar 2009 18:57:23 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753858AbZCJW5H (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Mar 2009 18:57:07 -0400 Received: from smtp1.linux-foundation.org ([140.211.169.13]:57636 "EHLO smtp1.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751170AbZCJW5E (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Mar 2009 18:57:04 -0400 Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2009 15:54:59 -0700 From: Andrew Morton To: Ryusuke Konishi Cc: hch@lst.de, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, konishi.ryusuke@lab.ntt.co.jp Subject: Re: Asking for inclusion of nilfs2 in the mainline kernel Message-Id: <20090310155459.11ffa81f.akpm@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: <20090311.015542.118514963.ryusuke@osrg.net> References: <20090311.015542.118514963.ryusuke@osrg.net> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 2.2.4 (GTK+ 2.8.20; i486-pc-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: 1935 Lines: 41 On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 01:55:42 +0900 (JST) Ryusuke Konishi wrote: > I've been working for the past serveral months to take review comments > and to continually solve users' problems come up in mainling list Yes, the maintenance has been impressive. > (thanks for all giving comments and feedbacks!). Also, I've tried to > stabilize API and disk format to restrict additional changes and > ensure backward compatibility. Well. From the point of view of mainline linux, there is no back-compatibility issue, because the fs hasn't been merged yet. You perhaps have back-compatibility concerns for existing users of the out-of-tree patch, but I'd encourage you to not worry about that too much - there will be fairly few users and they are probably pretty technical and will be able to cope with a migration. It's a _bit_ hard on them but on the other hand, omitting back-compatibility code leads to a better implementation for the long term. What you should be more concerned about is forward-compatibility. What arrangements do you presently have in place to be able to later alter the on-disk format without causing too much disruption? Having a strong design here will make changes easier to do and will lead to a better filesystem. Also.. Don't get _too_ concerned about freezing the on-disk format at this time. You could put in a mount-time printk("the nilfs on-disk format may change at any time - do not place critical data on a nilfs filesystem") and we leave that in place for a few months while things stabilise. And yes, I was planning on sending nilfs in to Linus for 2.6.30 unless someone has decent-sounding reasons to hold it back. -- 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/