Andreas Dilger wrote: > 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. Right, I understand the reason for noextents, nodelalloc, nomballoc. Above, I ask what is the point of having the *defaults* (extents, delalloc, mballoc) as mount options? -Eric - 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
