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 16:00:44 -0400 Message-ID: <4489D36C.3010000@garzik.org> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Michael Poole , Andrew Morton , ext2-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Christoph Hellwig , cmm@us.ibm.com, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Received: from srv5.dvmed.net ([207.36.208.214]:28320 "EHLO mail.dvmed.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1030467AbWFIUAw (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Jun 2006 16:00:52 -0400 To: Gerrit Huizenga In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org Gerrit Huizenga wrote: > On Fri, 09 Jun 2006 14:55:56 EDT, Jeff Garzik wrote: >> Because it's called backwards compat, when it isn't? >> Because it is very difficult to find out which set of kernels you are >> locked out of? >> Because the filesystem upgrade is stealthy, occurring as it does on the >> first data write? > > Actually, the *only* point being contended here is running older > kernels on some newer filesystems (created originally with a newer > kernel), right? > > Or do you have examples of where current kernels could not deal > with an ext3 feature at some point in time? > > I would argue that 0.001% of all Linux *users* actually worry about > this - most of them are right here on the development mailing list. > So, that group is more vocal, for sure. But, if it works for 99.99+% > users, aren't we still on the good path, from the point of view of > those people who actually *use* Linux the most? The overall objection is to treating ext3 as a highly mutable, one-size-fits-all filesystem. Maybe there is value in moving some reiser4 concepts -- a set of metadata+algorithm plugins -- to the VFS level. I dunno. But for ext3 specifically, it seems like bolting on extents, 48bit, delayed allocation, and other new features weren't really suited for the original ext2-style design. Outside of the support (and marketing, because that's all version numbers are in the end) issues already mentioned, I think it falls into the nebulous realm of "taste." Rather than taking another decade to slowly fix ext2 design decisions, why not move the process along a bit more rapidly? Release early, release often... Jeff