lists  /  announce  owl-users  owl-dev  john-users  john-dev  passwdqc-users  yescrypt  popa3d-users  /  oss-security  kernel-hardening  musl  sabotage  tlsify  passwords  /  crypt-dev  xvendor  /  Bugtraq  Full-Disclosure  linux-kernel  linux-netdev  linux-ext4  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Wed, 24 Oct 2007 16:15:36 -0500
From:	Eric Sandeen <>
To:	Andreas Dilger <>
CC:	"Aneesh Kumar K.V" <>,
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ext4: Enable delalloc and mballoc by default.

Andreas Dilger wrote:
> On Oct 24, 2007  12:22 -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>> Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
>>> @@ -1279,6 +1280,9 @@ clear_qf_name:
>>>  		case Opt_delalloc:
>>>  			set_opt (sbi->s_mount_opt, DELALLOC);
>>>  			break;
>> If delalloc, mballoc, extents are the new defaults, is there a reason to
>> keep them as options?  When would you need to specify -o extents, now,
>> for example?  (though my brain is fuzzy today, maybe I'm missing
>> something)  If this were not a filesystem ending in "dev" I could see
>> keeping it for compatibility with existing fstabs....
> It is useful to be able to mount w/o extents/delalloc/mballoc for perf
> testing and functional testing of the block-mapped file path in ext4.
> Also, some users might want the ability to use features of ext4 w/o
> the incompatibility of extents.

Right, I understand the reason for noextents, nodelalloc, nomballoc.
Above, I ask what is the point of having the *defaults* (extents,
delalloc, mballoc) as mount options?

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists