On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 10:30:31AM +0100, Solofo.Ramangalahy@xxxxxxxx wrote: > This was really an RFC, as you also pointed out. > Regarding this patch, the discussion raised the question of whether > EXT4_BG_INODE_UNINIT or EXT4_BG_ITABLE_UNINIT would be more coherent > than EXT4_BG_INODE_ZEROED wrt. EXT4_BG_INODE_UNINIT and > EXT4_BG_BLOCK_UNINIT. EXT2_BG_ITABLE_UNINIT (or EXT2_BG_ITABLE_PARTIALLY_UNINIT, to be more correct) would have been better, yes. That way legacy filesystems that didn't enable uninit_bg would have bg_flags == 0, and we would know that inode table was properly initialized. Unfortunately we did it the other way, where EXT2_BG_INODE_ZEROED is set when the inode table is initialized, instead of the other way around. > This is also the first use of EXT4_BG_INODE_ZEROED in the kernel, so > an occasion to revisit the name. Unfortunately, we've been shipping mke2fs in e2fsprogs that sets the EXT4_BG_INODE_ZERO for newly created filesystem, and if the lazy_itable_init configuration parameter is set, it doesn't initialize the inode table and leaves bg_flags set to EXT2_BG_INODE_UNINIT and EXT2_BG_BLOCK_UNINIT. Distributions are already shipping e2fsprogs with this, and there are ext4 filesystems out there in the wild, so it is indeed probably way too late to change this. - Ted -- 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
