From owner-cvs-src@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Mar 30 09:51:47 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cvs-src@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 985F11065673; Sun, 30 Mar 2008 09:51:47 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rwatson@FreeBSD.org) Received: from cyrus.watson.org (cyrus.watson.org [209.31.154.42]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6CAB28FC18; Sun, 30 Mar 2008 09:51:47 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rwatson@FreeBSD.org) Received: from fledge.watson.org (fledge.watson.org [209.31.154.41]) by cyrus.watson.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BCDEA46B52; Sun, 30 Mar 2008 05:51:46 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2008 10:51:46 +0100 (BST) From: Robert Watson X-X-Sender: robert@fledge.watson.org To: "Aryeh M. Friedman" In-Reply-To: <47EEF9CA.9080008@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20080330104855.N7523@fledge.watson.org> References: <200803300219.m2U2JSjv016162@repoman.freebsd.org> <47EEF9CA.9080008@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Cc: Alexander Ryba , cvs-src@FreeBSD.org, src-committers@FreeBSD.org, "Christian S.J. Peron" , cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/fs/ntfs ntfs_subr.c X-BeenThere: cvs-src@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: CVS commit messages for the src tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2008 09:51:47 -0000 On Sat, 29 Mar 2008, Aryeh M. Friedman wrote: > Christian S.J. Peron wrote: >> csjp 2008-03-30 02:19:27 UTC >> >> FreeBSD src repository >> >> Modified files: (Branch: RELENG_7) >> sys/fs/ntfs ntfs_subr.c Log: >> Un-break the build by adding a thread argument. This was removed in >> -CURRENT but this change has not been MFCed yet. >> Submitted by: attilo >> Revision Changes Path >> 1.42.2.2 +1 -1 src/sys/fs/ntfs/ntfs_subr.c > > I know this question should be else where but since the kernel ntfs doesn't > allow for writting and fusefs-ntfs is stable why is ntfs still in the kernel > and if it should be there why not replace it with fuse? That question was asked on arch@ recently, and you might want to go read its conclusions. They seem quite contrary to the observations you make :-). Robert N M Watson Computer Laboratory University of Cambridge