Messages in this thread | | | From | Kyle Moffett <> | Subject | Re: [Ext2-devel] [RFC 0/13] extents and 48bit ext3 | Date | Sat, 10 Jun 2006 15:27:17 -0400 |
| |
On Jun 9, 2006, at 15:01:20, Jeff Garzik wrote: > Chase Venters wrote: >> Now, granted, I really do agree with you about the whole code >> sharing thing. A fresh start is often just what you need. I'm just >> questioning if it wouldn't be better to do this fresh start >> immediately after going 48-bit, rather than before. That way, >> existing users that want that extra umph can have it today. > > Then you continue to crap up the code with > > if (48bit) > ... > else > ... > > etc. > > The proper way to do this is "cp -a ext3 ext4" (excluding JBD as > Andrew mentioned), and then let evolution take its course.
Why not: "extX_ops.do_something_useful();", then have fs/ext/ext {2,3,4}_ops.c which implement those various operations just like we do for the Virtual Filesystem Switch? Much as there are commonalities between all filesystems that get moved into the VFS; perhaps we should have a Virtual Ext Filesystem Switch (VEFS? VextFS?) which abstracts out the commonalities between the evolving ext{2,3} code and data format? Such code would also provide a library of common routines which could be used to implement other specialized filesystems in the future. Imagine a cluster-extfs which reuses some of the core extXfs code despite changing the on-disk format considerably!
Cheers, Kyle Moffett
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |