From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Phillip Lougher Subject: Re: Corrupted ASFS patch. Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 09:42:42 +0000 Message-ID: <4993EF12.8040209@lougher.demon.co.uk> References: <187c6cc60902090518vf8589a7nb9ee0ad30e618a03@mail.gmail.com> <20090209133120.GF24188@baikonur.stro.at> <85766219.20090212112447@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: maximilian attems , Matthew Wilcox , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org To: Pavel Fedin Return-path: Received: from lon1-post-1.mail.demon.net ([195.173.77.148]:64655 "EHLO lon1-post-1.mail.demon.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753099AbZBLJmt (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Feb 2009 04:42:49 -0500 In-Reply-To: <85766219.20090212112447@gmail.com> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Pavel Fedin wrote: > Third, this is the question fot Matthew, about annotating endianess > in on-disk structures. What if the filesystem is bi-endian? Original > SFS (http://sourceforge.net/projects/smartfilesystem) is bi-endian. I > still don't know how much of support for little-endian version is implemented > in Linux version. > This issue has come up before (over Squashfs which used to be 'bi-endian'). The general consensus is that all Linux filesystems should be one endianness only, as it potentially simplifies code and makes it more efficient (i.e. the swap code can be conditionally compiled). As SFS is not a native Linux filesystem you could argue that the bi-endian layout is a legacy feature over which you have no control. However, unless there are a lot of little-endian SFS filesystems out there, supporting them is likely to give you more pain than it's worth, and it will present an additional barrier to mainlining. Phillip