From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8CF88C3A5A1 for ; Thu, 22 Aug 2019 14:39:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6DD90233FD for ; Thu, 22 Aug 2019 14:39:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1732112AbfHVOj0 (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Aug 2019 10:39:26 -0400 Received: from szxga01-in.huawei.com ([45.249.212.187]:3948 "EHLO huawei.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1731487AbfHVOj0 (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Aug 2019 10:39:26 -0400 Received: from DGGEMM403-HUB.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.30.72.56]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 04F91F4E5300D576654F; Thu, 22 Aug 2019 22:39:23 +0800 (CST) Received: from dggeme762-chm.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.108) by DGGEMM403-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.3.20.211) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.439.0; Thu, 22 Aug 2019 22:39:22 +0800 Received: from architecture4 (10.140.130.215) by dggeme762-chm.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.108) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1591.10; Thu, 22 Aug 2019 22:39:22 +0800 Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2019 22:38:42 +0800 From: Gao Xiang To: Richard Weinberger CC: "Theodore Y. Ts'o" , Gao Xiang , "Richard Weinberger" , linux-fsdevel , , linux-kernel Subject: Re: erofs: Question on unused fields in on-disk structs Message-ID: <20190822143841.GC195034@architecture4> References: <1323459733.69859.1566234633793.JavaMail.zimbra@nod.at> <20190819204504.GB10075@hsiangkao-HP-ZHAN-66-Pro-G1> <20190821220251.GA3954@hsiangkao-HP-ZHAN-66-Pro-G1> <20190822142142.GB2730@mit.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28) X-Originating-IP: [10.140.130.215] X-ClientProxiedBy: dggeme709-chm.china.huawei.com (10.1.199.105) To dggeme762-chm.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.108) X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org Hi Richard, On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 04:29:44PM +0200, Richard Weinberger wrote: > On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 4:21 PM Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote: > > It might make life easier for other kernel developers if "features" > > was named "compat_features" and "requirements" were named > > "incompat_features", just because of the long-standing use of that in > > ext2, ext3, ext4, ocfs2, etc. But that naming scheme really is a > > legacy of ext2 and its descendents, and there's no real reason why it > > has to be that way on other file systems. > > Yes, the naming confused me a little. :-) Sorry for confusing... And thanks, I'm happy that you give us those reports. and sorry about my poor English... Thanks, Gao Xiang > > -- > Thanks, > //richard