From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sun, 23 Sep 2001 22:29:59 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sun, 23 Sep 2001 22:29:49 -0400 Received: from vitelus.com ([64.81.243.207]:13070 "EHLO vitelus.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sun, 23 Sep 2001 22:29:43 -0400 Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2001 19:30:08 -0700 From: Aaron Lehmann To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Linux-2.4.10 + ext3 Message-ID: <20010923193008.A13982@vitelus.com> In-Reply-To: <1001280620.3540.33.camel@gromit.house> <9om4ed$1hv$1@penguin.transmeta.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <9om4ed$1hv$1@penguin.transmeta.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.20i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Sep 24, 2001 at 02:06:05AM +0000, Linus Torvalds wrote: > We'll merge ext3 soon enough.. As RH seems to start using it more and > more, there's more reason to merge it into the standard kernel too. > > So don't worry. It will happen. Kinda OT, but ext3 is often treated more like a new file system than an extension of ext2. I'm wondering if this is a good thing. On the machines where I use it I have to compile both ext3 and ext2 (because it would be foolish to not have ext2 support) into the kernel. Theoretically, is there any reason why the codebases can't be integrated, allowing you mount ext2 FS' without journalling using only the ext3 code, and not requring a copy of its ancestor ext2 in the kernel? Or is there a way already?