[OpenAFS] OpenAFS on Linux 2.5.x

[Derrick J Brashear]

On Thu, 17 Apr 2003 jon+openafs@silicide.dk wrote:

> > > It doesnt work like that. It is Linus's kernel. He makes the stuff
> >
> > It doesn't matter if it works like that. You'll note I provided options
> > for all the other cases. For completeness, they must also not be willing
> > to do this, because otherwise it means we're ignoring an "out" and we
> > suck.
>
> I dont understand this. What other cases, what is it we are ignoring?

We aren't ignoring anything. There were a list of 4 "bullet points". This
was the last.

> > Because all of my free time ends being consumed by stupid political stuff
> > which I have no interest in doing, and in rewriting code that already
> > worked most often for the 50 variants of what purport to be the same
> > version of the Linux kernel.
>
> Just because it works doesnt mean it cant be made smarter. Suppose
> the kernel people didnt change the smp part since 2.0, since it did
> just work. Reworking working code can have advantages. And starting
> with the KISS approach is a good idea too, then you can later see
> how to improve it and make advanced stuff.

You missed the importance of "50 variants of what purport to be the same
version of the Linux kernel."

> > Sure. And you'll note I'm not fighting. I got frustrated and walked away.
> > If someone else wants or expects to deal, great. If any of the random
> > contacts I have pays off in a way that makes OpenAFS supportable in a way
> > useful to me on Linux 2.5, I will be willing to work on it. That's a real
> > possibility, but until I know what I'm going to have to work with, it's
> > premature to write code for it.
>
> Someone has to do the job. I hope your contacts pay off, as i would

Right. And all I'm saying is, you can like my attitude or not, but nothing
says the person who interfaces with linux kernel people has to be me;
Nobody's falling over themselves to do it, though.

> > we don't want openafs in the 2.6 kernel. we never asked for it, either.
>
> Maybe not _IN_ the kernel, but i'm sure that we would like to be
> able to use linux 2.6 AND openafs on the same machine, meaning
> it would have to be portet anyway.

Yes. But the distinction is important.

-D