From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff Garzik Subject: Re: [Ext2-devel] [RFC 0/13] extents and 48bit ext3 Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2006 14:43:08 -0400 Message-ID: <4489C13C.90302@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> <20060609181020.GB5964@schatzie.adilger.int> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Linus Torvalds , Andreas Dilger , Andrew Morton , ext2-devel , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, cmm@us.ibm.com, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Received: from srv5.dvmed.net ([207.36.208.214]:8085 "EHLO mail.dvmed.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1030374AbWFISnN (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Jun 2006 14:43:13 -0400 To: Alex Tomas In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org Alex Tomas wrote: >>>>>> Linus Torvalds (LT) writes: > LT> My point is, maintaining two different pieces is SIMPLER. > > "different" is a key word here. why should we copy most of ext3 code > into ext4? > > LT> It would be bigger, if you made ext3 do 48-bit block numbers. > > nope, we re-use existing i_data w/o any changes. yes, we've made > inode a bit larger to cache last found extent. this improves > performance in some workloads noticable though. > > LT> See? ext3 would become strictly _worse_ for the majority of users, who > LT> wouldn't get any advantage. That's my point. > > would "#if CONFIG_EXT3_EXTENTS" be a good solution then? No, that would be worse. Jeff