Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Btrfs Changes Rejected For The Linux 3.17 Kernel

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • phoronix
    started a topic Btrfs Changes Rejected For The Linux 3.17 Kernel

    Btrfs Changes Rejected For The Linux 3.17 Kernel

    Phoronix: Btrfs Changes Rejected For The Linux 3.17 Kernel

    Chris Mason at Facebook sent in his Btrfs file-system updates today for the Linux 3.17 merge window but it looks like the pull request is being rejected by Linus Torvalds and held off until Linux 3.18...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTc2MzU

  • 0xBADCODE
    replied
    Reduced patchset has made it to 3.17 before -rc1,

    Somewhat compacted version of this patch set (i.e. fixes of nasty issues rather than less significant stuff) has actually made it into 3.17-rc1.

    Just looking into GIT commits log:
    Code:
    commit e64df3ebe8262c8203d1fe4f541e0241c3112c01
    Merge: 53b95d6 8d875f9
    Author: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]>
    Date:   Sat Aug 16 09:06:55 2014 -0600
    
        Merge branch 'for-linus2' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mason/linux-btrfs
        
        Pull btrfs updates from Chris Mason:
         "These are all fixes I'd like to get out to a broader audience.
        
          The biggest of the bunch is Mark's quota fix, which is also in the
          SUSE kernel, and makes our subvolume quotas dramatically more
          accurate.
        
          I've been running xfstests with these against your current git
          overnight, but I'm queueing up longer tests as well"
        
        * 'for-linus2' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mason/linux-btrfs:
          btrfs: disable strict file flushes for renames and truncates
          Btrfs: fix csum tree corruption, duplicate and outdated checksums
          Btrfs: Fix memory corruption by ulist_add_merge() on 32bit arch
          Btrfs: fix compressed write corruption on enospc
          btrfs: correctly handle return from ulist_add
          btrfs: qgroup: account shared subtrees during snapshot delete
          Btrfs: read lock extent buffer while walking backrefs
          Btrfs: __btrfs_mod_ref should always use no_quota
          btrfs: adjust statfs calculations according to raid profiles
    And speaking of butter replacing ext4... in fact I use btrfs on some non-critical systems and it "just works" for simple cases. Yet it provides nice things like snapshots and recent versions got fairly good performance as well, at least in more or less common use cases.

    Leave a comment:


  • LLStarks
    replied
    Poor Butters.

    He'll never be ready to replace ext4.

    Leave a comment:


  • ua=42
    replied
    Originally posted by DanL View Post
    I know I shouldn't respond to your trolling, but did you read what Chris Mason wrote on the mailing list? Most of the proposed pull will still land in 3.17.x and Chris agreed with Linus' decision...
    Finnaly, someone on topic. So the fixes are likely to go in 3.17. Now I just need to learn if these are for fixing serious problems with btrfs or not.

    Leave a comment:


  • DanL
    replied
    Originally posted by kresh View Post
    If you submit late, too bad for you the MAN is traveling. You are not free suckers. hahaha
    I know I shouldn't respond to your trolling, but did you read what Chris Mason wrote on the mailing list? Most of the proposed pull will still land in 3.17.x and Chris agreed with Linus' decision...

    Hi Linus,
    This did get rebased this week (two days ago), but I've been running it
    through tests for some time. It was delayed by my own schedule problems
    (vacation and others) that made it very difficult for me to have it
    ready early in the window.

    Aside from a small number of cleanup patches, these are all fixes. I'm
    happy to pull out the cleanups and focus on the fixes.

    Leave a comment:


  • DanL
    replied
    Originally posted by kresh View Post
    blah blah blah
    Please put more thought/effort into your trolling.

    Leave a comment:


  • Falcon1
    replied
    Yes freedom

    If Linus starts to become (to)unreasonable someone is free to Fork and start his/her own branch.

    Distro's are free to take the (collected)patches from Chris and back port them to their kernel of choice.

    Example: A Closed source vendor has patches which you need. He'll tell you to wait for the next release and upgrade without giving you a timeline. The vendor will not backport because it's bad for sales on the new version. A bac kport also invests time/money in a product the vendor wants to drop anyway. How's that for freedom!

    Leave a comment:


  • Jedibeeftrix
    replied
    Originally posted by smitty3268 View Post
    Because he doesn't call the shots. If you don't like what he does, you take the code and do whatever you want with it.

    That's the point of OSS.
    i see we are not entirely free of trolls on phoronix, despite the joyous absence of lonestar!

    Leave a comment:


  • smitty3268
    replied
    Originally posted by kresh View Post
    You call it free. Yay free beer. You say it's more than free beer man, it's Freedom!

    How can it be Freedom I ask if one man calls the shots. If you submit late, too bad for you the MAN is traveling.

    You are not free suckers. hahaha
    Because he doesn't call the shots. If you don't like what he does, you take the code and do whatever you want with it.

    That's the point of OSS.

    Leave a comment:


  • kresh
    replied
    Opensourse, meh

    You call it free. Yay free beer. You say it's more than free beer man, it's Freedom!

    How can it be Freedom I ask if one man calls the shots. If you submit late, too bad for you the MAN is traveling.

    You are not free suckers. hahaha

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X