Messages in this thread | | | From | "Peter T. Breuer" <> | Subject | Re: 2.4 Features | Date | Tue, 8 Feb 2000 16:15:36 +0100 (MET) |
| |
"A month of sundays ago Jakub Jelinek wrote:" > On Tue, Feb 08, 2000 at 12:59:50AM +0100, Peter T. Breuer wrote: > > "A month of sundays ago Riley Williams wrote:" > > > I'm certainly willing to have a go at this, and see what happens. > > > However, I'm not really sure what would constitute "stress testing" in > > > this context, so guidance would be appreciated... > > > > > > I've been running e2compr on all production systems (mine included) > > for years. It's never given the slightest problem. I'm probably > > the only person that knows it's there. 2.0.36 and 2.2.10 kernels > > nowadays. 0.3.9 e2compr stuff (sorry Peter, you know about that). > > > > The drawback is that one has to remember to distribute patched e2fsck. > > > > I think things would be clearer if e2compr appeared as a separate > > file system type, requiring mount -t e2c, for example. Then it > > could never be confused with ext2/3, and one would explicitly > > require a separate fsck.e2c executable instead of a patched e2fsck. > > Strange. e2compr sets the incompat feature bit (at least in 0.4.34) which > prevents such filesystem to be mounted with a non-e2compr kernel or fscked > with non-e2compr aware fsck.
Glad to hear it (I'm not using 0.4.*). Even so, the effect of separating the file system names would be beneficial. It would avoid fallout on ext2's reputation if ext2compr partitions started doing silly things. I believe that is the only argument against including e2compr in the kernel today.
Peter
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |