On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 5:12 PM, Andi Kleen wrote: > "Amir G." writes: >> >> Yes, of course, I realize that. This is the reason I chose to >> introduce Next3 as a new f/s, >> which was branched from Ext3 and not as a new feature to Ext3. >> Unfortunately, merging Next3 snapshots feature into Ext4 is not an easy task, >> because extent mapped files break the design concepts of Next3 snapshots. > > As I understand it the ext4 code base still supports not having > extents enabled in the super block (although I'm not sure how well > that variant is tested in practice) > > So in theory you could have a feature that requires disabling extents. > > It might not make users very happy though. > In theory, it is possible to have 2 modes for Ext4 (extents or snapshots) and some would argue that it makes sense to do that. But I think that making that decision can be deferred to a later time, after people have experienced with Next3 and have decided if they would like to have the snapshot feature merged into Ext4 or not. Besides, it would take me a considerable amount of time to merge the snapshot feature into Ext4, and Next3 is ready to be used now. Amir. -- 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
