Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Thu, 14 Sep 2000 15:09:35 +0200 (CEST) | Subject | Re: NFS locking bug -- limited mtime resolution means nfs_lock() does not provide coherency guarantee | From | Trond Myklebust <> |
| |
>>>>> " " == Theodore Y Ts'o <tytso@MIT.EDU> writes:
> There has been some talk of doubling the size of the ext2 > inode, which will of course cause some backwards compatibility > problems and would mean that you would only be able to use > certain advanced features on new or converted ext2 filesystems. > However, there are enough downsides with this that it's > something of a last resort. It would make life a lot easier > for those various people doing new ext2 features from muscling > each other over space all the time.
I'm sure the idea has been raised before, but given the above paragraph I can't resist poking my nose into where it doesn't really belong:
Would it perhaps make sense to use one of these last 'free' fields as a pointer to an 'inode entension'? If you still want ext2fs to be able to accommodate new projects and ideas, then it seems that being able to extend the inode is a desirable feature, but perhaps this overlaps with the apparent plans for adding resource forks?
Cheers, Trond - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |