From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Alex Tomas Subject: Re: [RFC 0/13] extents and 48bit ext3 Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2006 22:30:20 +0400 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> <20060609181020.GB5964@schatzie.adilger.int> 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, Alex Tomas , Andreas Dilger Return-path: To: Linus Torvalds In-Reply-To: (Linus Torvalds's message of "Fri, 9 Jun 2006 11:22:19 -0700 (PDT)") 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 >>>>> Linus Torvalds (LT) writes: LT> My point is, maintaining two different pieces is SIMPLER. "different" is a key word here. why should we copy most of ext3 code into ext4? LT> It would be bigger, if you made ext3 do 48-bit block numbers. nope, we re-use existing i_data w/o any changes. yes, we've made inode a bit larger to cache last found extent. this improves performance in some workloads noticable though. LT> See? ext3 would become strictly _worse_ for the majority of users, who LT> wouldn't get any advantage. That's my point. would "#if CONFIG_EXT3_EXTENTS" be a good solution then? thanks. Alex