[lkml]   [2000]   [Sep]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: NFS locking bug -- limited mtime resolution means nfs_lock() does not provide coherency guarantee
>>>>> " " == 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

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?

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 12:38    [W:0.033 / U:5.224 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site