Re: [RFC 0/13] extents and 48bit ext3
Matthew Wilcox <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.file-systems.ext2.devel,gmane.linux.kernel,gmane.linux.file-systems |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Fri, Jun 09, 2006 at 10:30:06AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > And I'm not saying that just because it's a filesystem, and people get > upset if they lose data. No, I'm saying it because from a maintenance > standpoint, such a filesystem has almost zero cost. One of the costs (and I'm not disagreeing with your main point; I think forking ext3 to ext4 at this point is reasonable), is that bugfixes applied to one don't necessarily get applied to the other. I found some recently between ext2 and ext3, and submitted those, but I only audited one file. There's lots more to look at and I just haven't found the time recently. Going to three variations is a lot more work for auditing, and it might be worth splitting some bits which genuinely are the same into common code.