From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Alan Cox Subject: Re: [RFC 0/13] extents and 48bit ext3 Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2006 18:14:54 +0100 Message-ID: <1149873294.22124.33.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1149816055.4066.60.camel@dyn9047017069.beaverton.ibm.com> <4488E1A4.20305@garzik.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: cmm@us.ibm.com, Andrew Morton , Linus Torvalds , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, ext2-devel , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Received: from outpipe-village-512-1.bc.nu ([81.2.110.250]:34225 "EHLO lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1030209AbWFIQ7y (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Jun 2006 12:59:54 -0400 To: Jeff Garzik In-Reply-To: <4488E1A4.20305@garzik.org> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org Ar Iau, 2006-06-08 am 22:49 -0400, ysgrifennodd Jeff Garzik: > People (including me) still switch back and forth between ext2 and ext3 > mounts of the same filesystem on occasion. I think creating an "ext4" > would allow for greater developer flexibility in implementing new > features and ditching old ones -- while also emphasizing to the user > that switching back and forth between ext4 and ext[23] is a bad idea. I would agree with this, particularly as ext3 and ext4 are quite small in the kernel side of things and people needing 48bit extents are probably not trying to run on 8MB of flash. Alan