From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751116AbWFLI6M (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Jun 2006 04:58:12 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751188AbWFLI6M (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Jun 2006 04:58:12 -0400 Received: from jaguar.mkp.net ([192.139.46.146]:61327 "EHLO jaguar.mkp.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750904AbWFLI6K (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Jun 2006 04:58:10 -0400 To: Theodore Tso Cc: Jeff Garzik , Alex Tomas , Andrew Morton , ext2-devel , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Linus Torvalds , cmm@us.ibm.com, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Andreas Dilger 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> <4489A7ED.8070007@garzik.org> <20060609195750.GD10524@thunk.org> From: Jes Sorensen Date: 12 Jun 2006 04:58:09 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20060609195750.GD10524@thunk.org> Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.4 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 >>>>> "Ted" == Theodore Tso writes: Ted> On Fri, Jun 09, 2006 at 12:55:09PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote: >> 1) clone a new tree 2) cp -a fs/ext3 fs/ext4 3) apply extent and >> 48bit patches 4) apply related e2fsprogs patches >> >> Then update ext4 step-by-step, using the normal Linux development >> process. Ted> We don't do this with the SCSI layer where we make a complete Ted> clone of the driver layer so that there is a Ted> /usr/src/linux/driver/scsi and /usr/src/linux/driver/scsi2, do Ted> we? And we didn't do that with the networking layer either, as Ted> we added ipsec, ipv6, softnet, and a whole host of other changes Ted> and improvements. Maybe it's just me, but I am reading oranges vs apples there. The SCSI comparison is like suggesting we go from the VFS to a VFS2 or fs/ -> fs2/ for this. On the other hand going from ext3 -> ext4 to get something incompatible (like enabling extends or 48 bit) is similar to going net/ipv4 -> net/ipv6, which we did do indeed. Fact of the matter is that 2.4 is dead or at least frozen solid by now. The userland of most distros today wouldn't be able to boot with a 2.4 kernel anyway. Granted I am not a filesystem expert, but personally I would feel more comfortable deciding to put my data on an ext4 file system knowing that it was just that, rather than a hybrid. Jes