From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Eric Sandeen Subject: Re: what exactly is CONFIG_EXT4_USE_FOR_EXT23 for? Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2010 14:44:25 -0600 Message-ID: <4B995629.6020402@redhat.com> References: <4B991C81.5040506@redhat.com> <20100311194032.GI1497@thunk.org> <4B994A82.8010204@redhat.com> <20100311204020.GK1497@thunk.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: ext4 development To: tytso@mit.edu Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:43216 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751122Ab0CKUob (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Mar 2010 15:44:31 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20100311204020.GK1497@thunk.org> Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: tytso@mit.edu wrote: > On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 01:54:42PM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote: >> As long as it doesn't contaminate the "core" then sure, but the more twisty >> paths we have, the less likely any of them will be maintainable. :) >> >> I just think that before adding more knobs, we need to take a long hard >> look at what it does to the big picture. When documenting ext4 upstream, >> how many "if ... else if ... else if" clauses do we need? > > Fair enough. > > I'm all for proposals to get rid of some knobs, too, if we don't think > they serve a purpose. Recent examples that we've started deprecated > include minixdf --- and I really wonder if we need t have explicit > mount options to enable xattr and acl's. Anyone object if we just > enable them all the time by default? > > - Ted I'd be happy with that. It always bites me when I forget ;) Do we still need auto_da_alloc as a disable-able option? -Eric