From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Adrian Bunk Subject: Re: [Ext2-devel] [RFC 0/13] extents and 48bit ext3 Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2006 15:33:43 +0200 Message-ID: <20060610133343.GA11634@stusta.de> References: <20060609181020.GB5964@schatzie.adilger.int> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Linus Torvalds , Alex Tomas , Andreas Dilger , Jeff Garzik , Andrew Morton , ext2-devel , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, cmm@us.ibm.com, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Received: from mailout.stusta.mhn.de ([141.84.69.5]:2314 "HELO mailout.stusta.mhn.de") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1751515AbWFJNdk (ORCPT ); Sat, 10 Jun 2006 09:33:40 -0400 To: Chase Venters Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On Fri, Jun 09, 2006 at 02:00:15PM -0500, Chase Venters wrote: > On Fri, 9 Jun 2006, Chase Venters wrote: > > >On Fri, 9 Jun 2006, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > >> > >> > >> On Fri, 9 Jun 2006, Alex Tomas wrote: > >>> > >>> would "#if CONFIG_EXT3_EXTENTS" be a good solution then? > >> > >> Let's put it this way: > >> - have you had _any_ valid argument at all against "ext4"? > >> > >> Think about it. Honestly. Tell me anything that doesn't work? > > > >Now, granted, I really do agree with you about the whole code sharing > >thing. A fresh start is often just what you need. I'm just questioning if > >it wouldn't be better to do this fresh start immediately after going > >48-bit, rather than before. That way, existing users that want that extra > >umph can have it today. > > > > Let me clarify that I don't have a final answer or opinion for whether or > not 48-bit belongs in ext3 or ext4. But I'm trying to illustrate that it's > an important question to raise. > > In Group A we have some number of users that must have 48-bit support by > Date B. 48-bit support could be available in ext3 by Date A, before Date > B. It could also be available in ext4 by Date X, along with a handful of > other features. > > Is Date X before Date B? If it's not, is it worth telling Group A to > suffer for a while, or asking them to use ext4 before it's ready? These > are the questions I'd have to know the answers to if I were the one > casting a final decision. There are many points mentioned in this discussion like: - possibility of regressions for existing users - time until the new code is actually stable and well-tested - long-term maintainability The faster availability is a point, but it's only one amongst many points. And it's not that we are talking about a feature not yet available in Linux at all. Instead of suffering, couldn't the few people in urgent need of 48-bit support use JFS or XFS? cu Adrian -- "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days. "Only a promise," Lao Er said. Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed