On Oct 24, 2007 12:22 -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote: > Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote: > > @@ -1279,6 +1280,9 @@ clear_qf_name: > > case Opt_delalloc: > > set_opt (sbi->s_mount_opt, DELALLOC); > > break; > > If delalloc, mballoc, extents are the new defaults, is there a reason to > keep them as options? When would you need to specify -o extents, now, > for example? (though my brain is fuzzy today, maybe I'm missing > something) If this were not a filesystem ending in "dev" I could see > keeping it for compatibility with existing fstabs.... It is useful to be able to mount w/o extents/delalloc/mballoc for perf testing and functional testing of the block-mapped file path in ext4. Also, some users might want the ability to use features of ext4 w/o the incompatibility of extents. > > set_opt(sbi->s_mount_opt, EXTENTS); > > + set_opt(sbi->s_mount_opt, DELALLOC); > > + set_opt(sbi->s_mount_opt, MBALLOC); I think the other thing to do is enable the INCOMPAT_EXTENTS flag in mkfs.ext4 by default, so that extents is enabled/disabled in the same manner as other ext* features. We can remove the above once we have an e2fsprogs that specifically sets all of the ext4 features (large inodes, etc) for ext4 filesystems. Cheers, Andreas -- Andreas Dilger Sr. Software Engineer, Lustre Group Sun Microsystems of Canada, Inc. - 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
