On 2011-09-04, at 8:04 AM, Ted Ts'o <tytso@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 03, 2011 at 12:05:39PM -0600, Andreas Dilger wrote:
>> Why not just get rid of ext2_inode and replace it with
>> ext2_inode_large? Less change to the code, and less confusion for
>> developers.
>
> struct ext2_inode_large is there to make sure we don't break ABI
> compatibility for shared libraries.
What about renaming ext2_inode to ext2_inode_{small,orig} and then (optionally) rename ext2_inode_large to ext2_inode? That still avoids the code churn and continual risk of errors by developers using the small inode instead of the large inode, but keeps ABI compatibility.
Cheers, Andreas--
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
