Andreas Dilger wrote:
On May 29, 2007 13:48 +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
When the nanosecond timestamp extension was first proposed, the requirement
from Ted and Stephen were that s_min_extra_isize was a requirement. Otherwise
it would be possible to have a filesystem where the timestamps are going
backward on some files due to MOST of the files supporting ns timestamps,
but some with full EAs having to truncate the ns part away.
Now, this might not be critical for some users, but for others it can be.
Since this functionality is all here there isn't any reason to move it to
a separate patch. The same fields will be important for the inode version
also.
That is why i was thinking it should not be buried in the nanosecond
patch. Since there are multiple features depending on this, a nice patch
list would be
Add extra fields to superblock to take care of enabling feature after
file system creation
Add nano second feature
Add inode version feature
etc.
If wanted, i can attempt to split the patch as above. Let me know. If we
don't think the above is important I would say we should at least move
some of the commit message found in expand_inode_extra_isize.patch that
explains the usage to the patch that introduce these fields (nano second
patch ).
-aneesh
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
