Re: [Ext2-devel] [RFC 0/13] extents and 48bit ext3
Chase Venters <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.linux.file-systems,gmane.comp.file-systems.ext2.devel,gmane.linux.kernel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Fri, 9 Jun 2006, Chase Venters wrote: > On Fri, 9 Jun 2006, Linus Torvalds wrote: > >> >> >> On Fri, 9 Jun 2006, Alex Tomas wrote: >> > >> > would "#if CONFIG_EXT3_EXTENTS" be a good solution then? >> >> Let's put it this way: >> - have you had _any_ valid argument at all against "ext4"? >> >> Think about it. Honestly. Tell me anything that doesn't work? > > Now, granted, I really do agree with you about the whole code sharing thing. > A fresh start is often just what you need. I'm just questioning if it > wouldn't be better to do this fresh start immediately after going 48-bit, > rather than before. That way, existing users that want that extra umph can > have it today. > Let me clarify that I don't have a final answer or opinion for whether or not 48-bit belongs in ext3 or ext4. But I'm trying to illustrate that it's an important question to raise. In Group A we have some number of users that must have 48-bit support by Date B. 48-bit support could be available in ext3 by Date A, before Date B. It could also be available in ext4 by Date X, along with a handful of other features. Is Date X before Date B? If it's not, is it worth telling Group A to suffer for a while, or asking them to use ext4 before it's ready? These are the questions I'd have to know the answers to if I were the one casting a final decision. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html