Linux-kernel mailing list archive 1999-41,: HFS, QNXFS

# HFS, QNXFS

David Weinehall (tao@acc.umu.se)
Sat, 9 Oct 1999 23:30:30 +0200 (MET_DST)

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Alan Cox: "Re: More on bigger kdev_t"
- Previous message: Marc Mutz: "Re: Name change for /etc/conf.modules"
- Next in thread: Guest section DW: "Re: HFS, QNXFS"
- Reply: Guest section DW: "Re: HFS, QNXFS"
- Reply: brettt: "Re: HFS, QNXFS"
- Reply: a sun: "Re: HFS, QNXFS"

Both HFS and QNXFS has been in the kernel for quite some time, yet both
are flagged Experimental.

Is this still the case? Are they considered more unstable than other
filesystems in the kernel? If they are considered unstable, HFS should
be made if [ "$CONFIG_EXPERIMENTAL" ] ...

I've CC'd this mail to the maintainers/creators of these filesystems.

/David Weinehall
_ _
// David Weinehall <tao@acc.umu.se> /> Northern lights wander \\
// Project MCA Linux hacker // Dance across the winter sky //
\> http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/ </ Full colour fire </

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

- Next message: Alan Cox: "Re: More on bigger kdev_t"
- Previous message: Marc Mutz: "Re: Name change for /etc/conf.modules"
- Next in thread: Guest section DW: "Re: HFS, QNXFS"
- Reply: Guest section DW: "Re: HFS, QNXFS"
- Reply: brettt: "Re: HFS, QNXFS"
- Reply: a sun: "Re: HFS, QNXFS"