From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932590AbWFIXeN (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Jun 2006 19:34:13 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932588AbWFIXeN (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Jun 2006 19:34:13 -0400 Received: from mail.clusterfs.com ([206.168.112.78]:33449 "EHLO mail.clusterfs.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932314AbWFIXeM (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Jun 2006 19:34:12 -0400 Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2006 17:34:18 -0600 From: Andreas Dilger To: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu Cc: Alex Tomas , Andrew Morton , Jeff Garzik , ext2-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, hch@infradead.org, cmm@us.ibm.com, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [Ext2-devel] [RFC 0/13] extents and 48bit ext3 Message-ID: <20060609233418.GN5964@schatzie.adilger.int> Mail-Followup-To: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu, Alex Tomas , Andrew Morton , Jeff Garzik , ext2-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, hch@infradead.org, cmm@us.ibm.com, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org References: <44899653.1020007@garzik.org> <20060609095620.22326f9d.akpm@osdl.org> <4489AAD9.80806@garzik.org> <20060609103543.52c00c62.akpm@osdl.org> <4489B452.4050100@garzik.org> <4489B719.2070707@garzik.org> <170fa0d20606091127h735531d1s6df27d5721a54b80@mail.gmail.com> <4489C3D5.4030905@garzik.org> <200606092249.k59MnoqD015785@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200606092249.k59MnoqD015785@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-GPG-Key: 1024D/0D35BED6 X-GPG-Fingerprint: 7A37 5D79 BF1B CECA D44F 8A29 A488 39F5 0D35 BED6 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Jun 09, 2006 18:49 -0400, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote: > On Fri, 09 Jun 2006 23:22:23 +0400, Alex Tomas said: > > what if proposed patch is safer than an average fix? > > (given that it's just out of usage unless enabled) > > Those are the *dangerous* patches, because they usually contain bugs > that weren't tripped over by the 6 people who enabled it while it > was bouncing around in the -mm tree.... Umm, in case you didn't know, the extent patch which is the primary issue of discussion here (not the whole 64-bit clean changes though) were run for MILLIONS of hours under very high IO load on the largest computer systems in the world for the last year or so. It is easy to get millions of hours of usage if there are thousands of servers running this code... Yes, I have no doubt there will be bugs in the code because the usage pattern is different for different environments, but we aren't advocating the inclusion of something major like this that was just written yesterday in someone's basement. Cheers, Andreas -- Andreas Dilger Principal Software Engineer Cluster File Systems, Inc.