ext2, ext3, ext4 config headlines inconsistent:

ext2, ext3, ext4 config headlines inconsistent:

[Roland Dreier]

Hi Ted,

While running an oldconfig with the new kernel, I got the following prompt:

    Second extended fs support (EXT2_FS) [N/m/y/?] n
    Ext3 journalling file system support (EXT3_FS) [N/m/y/?] n
    The Extended 4 (ext4) filesystem (EXT4_FS) [N/m/y/?] (NEW) n

the lack of parallelism in the headline prompts is a little jarring.
Any interest in a patch to make this look uniform, or is it not worth
it?  If you are interested, which variant do you prefer?

Thanks,
  Roland

Re: ext2, ext3, ext4 config headlines inconsistent:

[Theodore Tso]

On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 11:37:23AM -0700, Roland Dreier wrote:
> Hi Ted,
> 
> While running an oldconfig with the new kernel, I got the following prompt:
> 
>     Second extended fs support (EXT2_FS) [N/m/y/?] n
>     Ext3 journalling file system support (EXT3_FS) [N/m/y/?] n
>     The Extended 4 (ext4) filesystem (EXT4_FS) [N/m/y/?] (NEW) n
> 
> the lack of parallelism in the headline prompts is a little jarring.
> Any interest in a patch to make this look uniform, or is it not worth
> it?  If you are interested, which variant do you prefer?

I'll note that we don't have consistency across all of the entries in
fs/Kconfig, not just ext2/ext3/ext4.  If it were just up to me I'd
probably prefer:

    Ext2 file system support (EXT2_FS) [N/m/y/?] n
    Ext3 file system support (EXT3_FS) [N/m/y/?] n
    Ext4 file system support (EXT4_FS) [N/m/y/?] (NEW) n

... but it might be worth looking at the other entries in fs/Kconfig
as well.

						- Ted

Re: ext2, ext3, ext4 config headlines inconsistent:

[Harald Arnesen]

Theodore Tso <tytso@mit.edu> writes:

> On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 11:37:23AM -0700, Roland Dreier wrote:
>> Hi Ted,
>> 
>> While running an oldconfig with the new kernel, I got the following prompt:
>> 
>>     Second extended fs support (EXT2_FS) [N/m/y/?] n
>>     Ext3 journalling file system support (EXT3_FS) [N/m/y/?] n
>>     The Extended 4 (ext4) filesystem (EXT4_FS) [N/m/y/?] (NEW) n
>> 
>> the lack of parallelism in the headline prompts is a little jarring.
>> Any interest in a patch to make this look uniform, or is it not worth
>> it?  If you are interested, which variant do you prefer?
>
> I'll note that we don't have consistency across all of the entries in
> fs/Kconfig, not just ext2/ext3/ext4.  If it were just up to me I'd
> probably prefer:
>
>     Ext2 file system support (EXT2_FS) [N/m/y/?] n
>     Ext3 file system support (EXT3_FS) [N/m/y/?] n
>     Ext4 file system support (EXT4_FS) [N/m/y/?] (NEW) n
>
> ... but it might be worth looking at the other entries in fs/Kconfig
> as well.

Something completely different - Documentation/filesystems/ext4:

  - When comparing performance with other filesystems, remember that
    ext3/4 by default offers higher data integrity guarantees than most.
    So when comparing with a metadata-only journalling filesystem, such
    as ext3, use `mount -o data=writeback'.  And you might as well use
       ^^^^
    `mount -o nobh' too along with it.  Making the journal larger than
    the mke2fs default often helps performance with metadata-intensive
    workloads.

Anything _but_ ext3 here?
-- 
Hilsen Harald.