From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff Garzik Subject: Re: [RFC 0/13] extents and 48bit ext3 Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2006 11:57:07 -0400 Message-ID: <44899A53.7080805@garzik.org> References: <1149816055.4066.60.camel@dyn9047017069.beaverton.ibm.com> <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 , ext2-devel , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, cmm@us.ibm.com, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Andreas Dilger Return-path: To: Linus Torvalds 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 Linus Torvalds wrote: > Quite frankly, at this point, there's no way in hell I believe we can do > major surgery on ext3. It's the main filesystem for a lot of users, and > it's just not worth the instability worries unless it's something very > obviously transparent. > > I wouldn't mind an ext4 (that hopefully drops some of the features of > ext3, and might not downgrade to ext2 on errors, for example). Certainly agreed, for all of this :) I think that the lack of ext4 means people keep trying to stuff the wrong things into ext3. Jeff