Re: Linux-2.4.10 + ext3

[Aaron Lehmann <aaronl@vitelus.com>]

On Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 08:45:22PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> So yes, it would be nice if an ext3-only kernel could drive ext2
> filesystems, but not super-important.

Cool.

> As for the other part of your suggestion: make ext2 "obsolete":
> I don't think so.  ext3 is wickedly complex, and ext2 is the
> reference filesystem for Linux.  It could be argued (at length) that
> the VFS and block layers were designed for, and are almost part of
> ext2.

I didn't mean to imply this. I love ext2 and still use it more than
probably any other filesystem (judging by numbers of partitions).

I simply was hoping for insted of:

 <*> EXT2 fs
 <*> EXT3 fs

(which is required today for most ext3-using people who want to do ext2
mounts)

... there could be:

 <*> EXT2 fs
 <*>   EXT3 journalling extensions

AFAIK this would eliminate a lot of duplicate kernel code for ext3
users.

But anyway, I'm not saying that ext2 should be made obsolete. I only
use ext3 on one machine and I would be much more annoyed if I had to
enable ext3 on the other machines than live with my current situation
of needing both ext2 and ext3 in the kernel on this particular one.

I think you understand ;-).