Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [GIT PULL] Ext3 removal, quota & udf fixes | From | Austin S Hemmelgarn <> | Date | Wed, 2 Sep 2015 09:28:37 -0400 |
| |
On 2015-09-02 01:46, Raymond Jennings wrote: > On 09/01/15 20:30, Albino B Neto wrote: >> 2015-08-31 23:53 GMT-03:00 Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>: >>> Yes, you can go back to ext3-only. In fact, we do *not* automatically >>> upgrade the file system to use ext4-specific features. >>>> So it's not just a "you can use ext4 instead" issue. Can you do that >>>> *without* then forcing an upgrade forever on that partition? I'm not >>>> sure the ext4 people are really even willing to guarantee that kind of >>>> backwards compatibility. >>> Actually, we do guarantee this. It's considered poor form to >>> automatically change the superblock to add new file system features in >>> a way that would break the ability for the user to roll back to an >>> older kernel. This isn't just for ext3->ext4, but for new ext4 >>> features such as metadata checksumming. The user has to explicitly >>> enable the feature using "tune2fs -O new_feature /dev/sdXX". >> Yeah! >> >> 2015-09-01 16:39 GMT-03:00 Austin S Hemmelgarn <ahferroin7@gmail.com>: >>> NO, it is not logical. A vast majority of Android smartphones in the >>> wild >>> use ext2, as do a very significant portion of embedded systems that >>> don't >>> have room for the few hundred kilobytes of extra code that the ext4 >>> driver >>> has in comparison to ext2. >> Ext2 portion embedded and Ext3 many machines. > > So basically the game plan is gutting ext3 because code-dupe with ext4, > but keep ext2 because ext4 is too big for embedded to outright replace > ext2? > > Hmm...are there any embedded systems out there that use ext3 and can fit > its code ext3 but not ext4? Probably, but I don't know of any myself. TBH, the systems that use ext2 because of space savings are usually ones with less than 64M of RAM, which is becoming a smaller and smaller market share.
[unhandled content-type:application/pkcs7-signature] | |