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

[Adam Hamsik <haaaad%gmail.com@localhost>]

On Oct,Friday 29 2010, at 12:58 AM, Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:

> 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.

about what we are talking about 2 thousand lines? growfs works for users, 
resize_ffs doesn't even build by default. How users are supposed to use it ?? 
In your logic if user want's to grow lvm file system he should download 
sources, make mechnical chnages to make it work with ffs2, build resize_ffs and 
resize it.

Regards

Adam.