From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner+willy=40w.ods.org-S1030352AbWFISa0@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1030352AbWFISa0 (ORCPT <rfc822;willy@w.ods.org>);
	Fri, 9 Jun 2006 14:30:26 -0400
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1030351AbWFISaZ
	(ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel-outgoing>);
	Fri, 9 Jun 2006 14:30:25 -0400
Received: from [80.71.248.82] ([80.71.248.82]:8838 "EHLO gw.home.net")
	by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1030352AbWFISaY (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Fri, 9 Jun 2006 14:30:24 -0400
X-Comment-To: Linus Torvalds
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
Cc: Andreas Dilger <adilger@clusterfs.com>, Alex Tomas <alex@clusterfs.com>,
       Jeff Garzik <jeff@garzik.org>, Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>,
       ext2-devel <ext2-devel@lists.sourceforge.net>,
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, cmm@us.ibm.com,
       linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Ext2-devel] [RFC 0/13] extents and 48bit ext3
References: <1149816055.4066.60.camel@dyn9047017069.beaverton.ibm.com>
	<4488E1A4.20305@garzik.org>
	<20060609083523.GQ5964@schatzie.adilger.int>
	<44898EE3.6080903@garzik.org> <448992EB.5070405@garzik.org>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0606090836160.5498@g5.osdl.org>
	<m33beecntr.fsf@bzzz.home.net>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0606090913390.5498@g5.osdl.org>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0606090933130.5498@g5.osdl.org>
	<20060609181020.GB5964@schatzie.adilger.int>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0606091114270.5498@g5.osdl.org>
From: Alex Tomas <alex@clusterfs.com>
Organization: HOME
Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2006 22:30:20 +0400
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0606091114270.5498@g5.osdl.org> (Linus Torvalds's message of "Fri, 9 Jun 2006 11:22:19 -0700 (PDT)")
Message-ID: <m31wty9o77.fsf@bzzz.home.net>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.1008 (Gnus v5.10.8) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

>>>>> Linus Torvalds (LT) writes:
 LT> My point is, maintaining two different pieces is SIMPLER.

"different" is a key word here. why should we copy most of ext3 code
into ext4?

 LT> It would be bigger, if you made ext3 do 48-bit block numbers.

nope, we re-use existing i_data w/o any changes. yes, we've made
inode a bit larger to cache last found extent. this improves
performance in some workloads noticable though.

 LT> See? ext3 would become strictly _worse_ for the majority of users, who 
 LT> wouldn't get any advantage. That's my point.

would "#if CONFIG_EXT3_EXTENTS" be a good solution then?

thanks. Alex