![]() | |||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
Theodore Ts'o wrote: > To address these issues, after discussing the matter amongst ourselves, > the ext2/3 developers would like to propose the following path forward. Overall... ACK from me. Thanks for listening. > 2) Bug fixes to fix 32-bit cleanliness issues, security/oops problems > will go into fs/ext3, but all new development work will go into fs/ext4. > There is some question about whether relatively low risk features such > as slimming the extX in-core memory structure, and delayed allocation > for ext3, which have no format impacts, should go into fs/ext3, or > whether such enhancement should only benefit fs/ext4 users. This is a > cost/benefit tradeoff for which the guidance of the LKML community about > whether the loss in code stability is worth the improvements to current > ext3 users, given the existence of the development branch. Agreed overall, though specifically for delayed allocation I think that's an ext4 thing: * First off, I'm a big fan of delalloc, and (like extents) definitely want to see the feature implemented * Delayed allocation, properly done, requires careful interaction with VM writeback (memory pressure or normal writeout), and may require some minor changes to generic code in fs/* and mm/* * Delayed allocation changes I/O ordering, and may require some retuning for workloads to remain optimal * Delayed allocation changes data layout on disk. HOPEFULLY for the better, but we won't know that until its been hammered a bit in the field. So while I agree it has no format impacts, I also think it has a non-trivial -- and currently unknown -- impact on stable systems. Also for the reasons listed, I think ext4 would be a far superior testbed for delalloc. > In addition, we are assuming that various "low risk" changes that do > involve format changes, such as support for higher resolution > timestamps, will _not_ get integrated into the fs/ext3 codebase, and > that people who want these features will have to use the > stable/development fs/ext4 codebase. ACK > 3) The ext4 code base will continue to mount older ext3 filesystems, > as this is necessary to ensure a future smooth upgrade path from ext3 > to ext4 users. In addition, once a feature is added to the ext3dev > filesystem, a huge amount of effort will be made to provide continuing > support for the filesystem format enhancements going forward, just as > we do with the syscall ABI. (Emergencies might happen if we make a > major mistake and paint ourselves into a corner; but just as with > changes to the kernel/userspace ABI, if there is some question about > whether or not a particular filesystem format can be supported going > forward indefinitely, we will not push changes into the mainline > kernel until we are can be confident on this point.) ACK > 4) At some point, probably in 6-9 months when we are satisified with the > set of features that have been added to fs/ext4, and confident that the > filesystem format has stablized, we will submit a patch which causes the > fs/ext4 code to register itself as the ext4 filesystem. The > implementation may still require some shakedown before we are all > confident that it is as stable as ext3 is today. At that point, perhaps > 12-18 months out, we may request that the code in fs/ext3/*.c be deleted > and that fs/ext4 register itself as supporting the ext3 filesystem as > well. I continue to have a concern that it will become tougher over time to support all these features in the same codebase... so consider this a reluctant "ACK" for this last paragraph. :) Jeff - 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/ | ||||||||||
| Last update: 2006-06-30 03:17 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||