Theodore Tso wrote: > On Fri, Dec 05, 2008 at 06:02:04PM -0700, Andreas Dilger wrote: >>> How far out of "dev" are we? I'm leaning towards saying "oh well, would >>> have been nicer the other way" but going ahead and just putting the >>> compat handler into the kernel. >> I would be OK with changing to the "proper" struct layout. Not being able >> to resize with an older e2fsprogs + newer kernel isn't going to cause any >> serious problems (unlike e.g. not being able to mount or e2fsck "/"). >> >> If we are seriously worried about compatibility, we could add the compat >> handler for 32-bit kernels (should have a different IOC number anyways >> because of the struct size) and add some arbitrary check like: >> >> #ifdef LINUX_KERNEL_VERSION > KERNEL_VERSION(2,6,40) >> #warning remove this old compat code >> #endif > > Given that a bunch of distro's have shipped e2fsprogs 1.41.x which we > advertised as being ext4 compatibility, I think we need to keep the > compatibility code. If we want to add the complexity for the 32-bit > side, with a 2-3 year timeout, that seems like a reasonable > compromise. > > - Ted I tend to agree, unfortunately... I'll send the current compat patch, then, and when/if I get motivated, add another cleaner interface+number I guess... -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
