Re: [PATCH 0/7] OMFS filesystem version 3 [LWN.net]

From:		Andrew Morton <akpm-AT-linux-foundation.org>
To:		Christoph Hellwig <hch-AT-infradead.org>
Subject:		Re: [PATCH 0/7] OMFS filesystem version 3
Date:		Tue, 15 Apr 2008 11:34:52 -0700
Message-ID:		<20080415113452.e9eacb54.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc:		Adrian Bunk <bunk-AT-kernel.org>, Alan Cox <alan-AT-lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>, David Woodhouse <dwmw2-AT-infradead.org>, Miklos Szeredi <miklos-AT-szeredi.hu>, me-AT-bobcopeland.com, linux-kernel-AT-vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel-AT-vger.kernel.org
Archive-link:		Article, Thread

On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 12:57:27 -0400 Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org> wrote:

> On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 06:16:43PM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > We are talking about a filesystem even Christoph considers OK.
> > 
> > And who asked about the costs of merging crap like 
> > drivers/infiniband/hw/nes/ ?
> > 
> > Speaking about the latter, with Linus' logic one might argue that OMFS 
> > must not be rejected since it adds support for some hardware...
> 
> Excatly.  I find it very strange to even consider rejecting a rather
> small and very well written driver for let's say "political" reasons.

"economic" would be a far more accurate term.

Look, I have repeatedly described the reason why it is probable a poor
tradeoff to merge code such as this.  The only response has been "well
we've done it before", which is largely a non-reason.

You can continue to ignore my logic, but that won't go unnoticed.

Just as a thought exercise: should we merge a small and well-written
driver which has zero users?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

(Log in to post comments)