Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 22 Aug 2019 22:38:42 +0800 | From | Gao Xiang <> | Subject | Re: erofs: Question on unused fields in on-disk structs |
| |
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@mit.edu> 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
| |