On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 06:40:02PM -0500, Ted Ts'o wrote: > On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 01:59:25PM -0800, Joel Becker wrote: > > > > Why not call it a 'cluster' like the rest of us do? The term > > 'blocksize' is overloaded enough already. > > Yes, good point. Allocation cluster makes a lot more sense as a name. Thank you ;-) > We're going to keep track of what blocks are uninitialized or not on a > 4k basis. So that part of the ext4 code doesn't change. Ok, good. We don't have that info, so we enjoy a lot of fun with the various pagesize/blocksize/clustersize combinations. > We could add complexity to do suballocations for directories, but KISS > seems to be a much better idea for now. Oh dear God no. Joel -- "Nobody loves me, Nobody seems to care. Troubles and worries, people, You know I've had my share." http://www.jlbec.org/ jlbec@xxxxxxxxxxxx -- 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
