Michael Poole wrote:
Jeff Garzik writes:
Theodore Tso wrote:
And I'd also dispute with your "weren't really suited for the original
ext2-style design" comment. Ext2/3 was always designed to be
extensible from the start, and we've successfully added features quite
successfully for quite a while.
Although not the only disk format change, extents are a pretty big
one. Will this be the last major on-disk format change?
You keep making "straw that broke the camel's back" type arguments
without saying why this particular straw (rather than the other
compatibility-breaking features that are already in ext3) is the one
that must not be allowed. Is it a matter of taste, or is there some
objective threshold that extents cross?
Yes, it's not a small change to the on-disk format.
If you write tools that read an ext3 filesystem, you won't be able to
read file data at all, without updating your code.
That's a much bigger deal than say 32-bit uids.
Jeff
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
