On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 07:50:50AM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 10:10:49AM -0200, Carlos Maiolino wrote: > > the patch looks good, but I'm very concerned about how much problems this will > > cause to stable releases and enterprise products which use to work with older > > kernel versions but a lot of backports of new features/bug fixes. Probably > > upstream stable releases will not be too much affected giving these features > > (new resize interface) might never be ported to stable kernels, but how about > > the backporters? This mightl cause a lot of confusion when changing the > > major/minor versions needed here. > > > > IMHO, the new resize interface looks much better than the old one, and just > > developers and users which do not have new interface should make use of the old > > one. For developers I believe a resize2fs option is good enough to be used as > > debug, and for users, well, if they do not have the new resize2fs, we should do > > noting, once they'll use the old one automatically :-) > > Well, this environment variable was intended only for developers who > would be doing testing. Note that I didn't bother to documenting both > the older debugging environment variable, nor this new debugging > environment variable. It would problably be a good idea for me to > write up the changes in the resize2fs interface (i.e., the new resize > ioctl in 3.3, meta_bg / 64-bit resizing in 3.7) in the ext4 wiki, if > for no other reason so that less sophisticated distributions _know_ > which commits they should back port so they can have a fully working > resize2fs. :-) > > - Ted This looks good for me, thanks =] -- Carlos -- 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
