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 23:22:12 +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 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 IMHO ... the main reason is that ext4 would be treated as a new generation fs which will be used for lots of new features probably. and it will take long to get into production-ready state. at the same time, proposed patches (at least extents itself) are heavily tested in production and could be made available for our users very soon. thanks, Alex >>>>> Linus Torvalds (LT) writes: LT> On Fri, 9 Jun 2006, Alex Tomas wrote: >> >> would "#if CONFIG_EXT3_EXTENTS" be a good solution then? LT> Let's put it this way: LT> - have you had _any_ valid argument at all against "ext4"? LT> Think about it. Honestly. Tell me anything that doesn't work? LT> Linus