From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Matthew Wilcox Subject: Re: [RFC 0/13] extents and 48bit ext3 Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2006 11:41:46 -0600 Message-ID: <20060609174146.GO1651@parisc-linux.org> References: <4488E1A4.20305@garzik.org> <20060609083523.GQ5964@schatzie.adilger.int> <44898EE3.6080903@garzik.org> <448992EB.5070405@garzik.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Andrew Morton , Jeff Garzik , ext2-devel , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, cmm@us.ibm.com, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Alex Tomas , Andreas Dilger Return-path: To: Linus Torvalds Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: ext2-devel-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net Errors-To: ext2-devel-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On Fri, Jun 09, 2006 at 10:30:06AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > And I'm not saying that just because it's a filesystem, and people get > upset if they lose data. No, I'm saying it because from a maintenance > standpoint, such a filesystem has almost zero cost. One of the costs (and I'm not disagreeing with your main point; I think forking ext3 to ext4 at this point is reasonable), is that bugfixes applied to one don't necessarily get applied to the other. I found some recently between ext2 and ext3, and submitted those, but I only audited one file. There's lots more to look at and I just haven't found the time recently. Going to three variations is a lot more work for auditing, and it might be worth splitting some bits which genuinely are the same into common code.