From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Gerrit Huizenga Subject: Re: [Ext2-devel] [RFC 0/13] extents and 48bit ext3 Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2006 08:53:57 -0700 Message-ID: References: Reply-To: Gerrit Huizenga Cc: Jeff Garzik , 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 e34.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.152]:62640 "EHLO e34.co.us.ibm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1030240AbWFIPzB (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Jun 2006 11:55:01 -0400 To: Alex Tomas In-reply-to: Your message of Fri, 09 Jun 2006 19:28:22 +0400. Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On Fri, 09 Jun 2006 19:28:22 +0400, Alex Tomas wrote: > JG> "ext3" will become more and more meaningless. It could mean _any_ of > JG> several filesystem metadata variants, and the admin will have no clue > JG> which variant they are talking to until they try to mount the blkdev > JG> (and possibly fail the mount). > > debugfs -R stats | grep features ? Sounds similar to cat /proc/cpuinfo. How *do* we deal with processors which have all these many different features? Probably better than we would if each variant were viewed as a different architecture. Jeff's approach taken to the rediculous would mean that we'd have ext versions 1-40 by now at least. I don't think that helps much, either. I think the ext2/3 team has done a great job of providing compatibility. It isn't perfect compatibility forwards *and* backwards, but moving forwards always seems to be pretty reasonable. gerrit