On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 4:21 PM Theodore Y. Ts'o <tytso@xxxxxxx> wrote: > It might make life easier for other kernel developers if "features" > was named "compat_features" and "requirements" were named > "incompat_features", just because of the long-standing use of that in > ext2, ext3, ext4, ocfs2, etc. But that naming scheme really is a > legacy of ext2 and its descendents, and there's no real reason why it > has to be that way on other file systems. Yes, the naming confused me a little. :-) -- Thanks, //richard
