Theodore Tso wrote: > If we do that, then the only downside of having ext3 filesystems run > under ext4 is the test matrix concern. Since I'm still hoping that > some point in the future, fs/ext4 could subsume fs/ext3 so we don't > have to worry about bug fixes going into fs/ext2 AND fs/ext3 AND > fs/ext4, I have my own reasons for wanting that. But I do understand > the concerns that maybe in the short term some distro's don't want to > do that. So in that case I could see adding a "you must have extents" > test into ext4, if I distro has specific support concerns. But for > people who are running mainline kernel, I think it's actually a *good* > thing if fs/ext4 can mount and read and write to an ext3 filesystem > --- as long as it doesn't automatically turn on features behind the > user's back. Well, sure, the ability of ext4 code to mount,read,write ext3 filesystems is fine, esp. if ext4.ko stops doing things which makes it hard to go back to ext3. And, I do like the long-term plan of ext4 replacing ext3, it's a bit of a pain to keep this all in sync. I just think that ext4.ko running ext3 filesystems needs to be under explicit control, and not something that happens, occasionally, accidentally, without the user/administrator requesting it. Least surprise, and all that... -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
