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 12:42:52 -0700 Message-ID: References: <4489C43C.6000906@garzik.org> Reply-To: Gerrit Huizenga 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 e36.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.154]:62929 "EHLO e36.co.us.ibm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1030461AbWFITn7 (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Jun 2006 15:43:59 -0400 To: Jeff Garzik In-reply-to: Your message of Fri, 09 Jun 2006 14:55:56 EDT. <4489C43C.6000906@garzik.org> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org 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? gerrit