Re: [HEADS-UP] growfs port for ffs2 and ffs1

[Thor Lancelot Simon <tls%panix.com@localhost>]

On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 12:13:29AM +0200, Adam Hamsik wrote:
> 
> I have been testing growfs in a loop for some time now (ffs1, ffs2,
> wapbl) and everything works fine, I will commit this during weekend if
> there are no real objections.

I object, and I consider my objection (which is the same as the objection
raised by a member of core!) to be real, even if you do not.

> Existence of resize_ffs which was never included to build and can't resize
> ffs2 file system can't be considered as issue. 

I don't think it's correct to simply declare that others' objections
"can't be considered as issue".  Resize_ffs is in our tree, it works, and it
can shrink filesystems, which the code you propose to commit cannot!  I
do not think something that duplicates most of its functionality, adds one
new feature (support for ffs2) but omits another (shrinking filesystems)
should be committed.

Thor