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 17:32:31 -0400 Message-ID: <4489E8EF.5020508@garzik.org> References: <20060609083523.GQ5964@schatzie.adilger.int> <44898EE3.6080903@garzik.org> <448992EB.5070405@garzik.org> <4489A7ED.8070007@garzik.org> <20060609195750.GD10524@thunk.org> <20060609203803.GF3574@ca-server1.us.oracle.com> <20060609205036.GI7420@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Theodore Tso , Alex Tomas , Andrew Morton , ext2-devel , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Linus Torvalds , cmm@us.ibm.com, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Andreas Dilger Return-path: Received: from srv5.dvmed.net ([207.36.208.214]:28325 "EHLO mail.dvmed.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1030520AbWFIVcl (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Jun 2006 17:32:41 -0400 To: Dave Jones In-Reply-To: <20060609205036.GI7420@redhat.com> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org Dave Jones wrote: > Am I missing something fundamental that precludes the use of both > extent-based and current existing filesystems from the same code > simultaneously ? Nothing precludes it. The point is that introducing major format changes inline in this manner just complicates the code progressively to the point where your directory walking, inode block walking, and other code winds up being if (new) ... else ... _anyway_, at which point it is essentially multiple independent filesystems. I guarantee this won't be the last fundamental fs metadata design change people will want to make... Jeff