Hi Richard, On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 04:29:44PM +0200, Richard Weinberger wrote: > 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. :-) Sorry for confusing... And thanks, I'm happy that you give us those reports. and sorry about my poor English... Thanks, Gao Xiang > > -- > Thanks, > //richard
