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

[christos%zoulas.com@localhost (Christos Zoulas)]

On Oct 28,  6:58pm, tls%panix.com@localhost (Thor Lancelot Simon) wrote:
-- Subject: Re: [HEADS-UP] growfs port for ffs2 and ffs1

| 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.

I also don't think it is too hard to make it work with ffsv2... It is just
mechanical changes.

christos