From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Jeff Garzik <jeff@garzik.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/13] extents and 48bit ext3
Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2006 23:11:31 -0400
Message-ID: <448A3863.3060906@garzik.org>
References: <1149886670.5776.111.camel@sisko.sctweedie.blueyonder.co.uk>
	<4489ECDD.9060307@garzik.org>
	<1149890138.5776.114.camel@sisko.sctweedie.blueyonder.co.uk>
	<448A07EC.6000409@garzik.org> <20060610004727.GC7749@thunk.org>
	<448A1BBA.1030103@garzik.org>
	<20060610013048.GS5964@schatzie.adilger.int>
	<448A23B2.5080004@garzik.org> <20060610020306.GA449@thunk.org>
	<448A2A6F.8020301@garzik.org> <20060610025424.GA8536@thunk.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>,
	Matthew Frost <artusemrys@sbcglobal.net>,
	"Stephen C. Tweedie" <sct@redhat.com>,
	"ext2-devel@lists.sourceforge.net" <ext2-devel@lists.sourceforge.net>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>, Mingming Cao <cmm@us.ibm.com>,
	linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Alex Tomas <alex@clusterfs.com>
Return-path: <ext2-devel-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net>
To: Theodore Tso <tytso@mit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <20060610025424.GA8536@thunk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ext2-devel>,
	<mailto:ext2-devel-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum=ext2-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:ext2-devel@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:ext2-devel-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ext2-devel>,
	<mailto:ext2-devel-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ext2-devel-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net
Errors-To: ext2-devel-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net
List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org

Theodore Tso wrote:
> And this is your argument that on-line resizing is a horrible hack,

It's an example of ext2 being bandaided to do something it was never 
originally designed to do.  If online resizing had been planned from the 
start, allocating new inode tables on the fly would be trivial, as it is 
in JFS/NTFS/...


> and ext3 should be thrown out and rewritten from scratch? 

Blatant and silly exaggeration.  Re-read the thread, and note how many 
times "cp -a ext3 ext4" was written.

	Jeff