On Oct 7, 2020, at 2:14 PM, Josh Triplett <josh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > If those aren't the right way to express that, I could potentially > adapt. I had a similar such conversation on linux-ext4 already (about > inline data with 128-bit inodes), which led to me choosing to abandon > 128-byte inodes rather than try to get ext4 to support what I wanted > with them, because I didn't want to be disruptive to ext4 for a niche > use case. In the particular case that motivated this thread, what I was > doing already worked in previous kernels, and it seemed reasonable to > ask for it to continue to work in new kernels, while preserving the > newly added checks in the new kernels. This was discussed in the "Inline data with 128-byte inodes?" thread back in May. While Jan was not necessarily in favour of this, I was actually OK with improving the ext4 code to handle this case better, since it would (at minimum) clean up ext4 to make a clear separation of how it is detecting data in the i_block[] array and the system.data xattr, and I don't think it added any complexity to the code. I even posted a WIP patch to that effect, but didn't get a response back: https://marc.info/?l=linux-ext4&m=158863275019187 I *do* think that inline_data is an under-appreciated feature that I would be happy to see some improvements with. I don't think that small files are a niche use case, and if we can clean up the inline_data code to work with 128-byte inodes I'm not against that, even though I'm not going to use that combination of features myself. Cheers, Andreas
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
