From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: [RFC 0/13] extents and 48bit ext3 Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2006 12:27:30 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: References: <1149816055.4066.60.camel@dyn9047017069.beaverton.ibm.com> <4488E1A4.20305@garzik.org> <20060609083523.GQ5964@schatzie.adilger.int> <44898EE3.6080903@garzik.org> <448992EB.5070405@garzik.org> <2DFFC56C-2516-449F-990E-71DDE2601531@mac.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Andrew Morton , Jeff Garzik , ext2-devel , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, cmm@us.ibm.com, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Andreas Dilger Return-path: To: Kyle Moffett In-Reply-To: <2DFFC56C-2516-449F-990E-71DDE2601531@mac.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: ext2-devel-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net Errors-To: ext2-devel-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On Sat, 10 Jun 2006, Kyle Moffett wrote: > > One possible solution to the version-confusion that would avoid duplicating > features would be to merge the fs/ext{2,3} to fs/ext, then make fs/ext > register itself as a filesystem under "ext2", "ext3", and "ext4". But the thing is, technical people don't actually care about the version confusion. The real issue is that ext3 is a stable filesystem, and the ext4 stuff buys fundamentally and absolutely _nothing_ for the vast majority of uses. Except pain. So the real reason for the split would be the _user_ split. There are people who want big filesystems, and there are people who don't care. It's that simple. > I've heard quite some griping about the amount of duplicated code > between ext2 and ext3; That's a total piece of bullshit. Nobody seriously gripes about the duplication, and the ones that do have absolutely no idea what that split bought us. Ignore them. Linus