[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <56D52981-70CD-4A60-B8C4-01A22F5A5433@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 4 Sep 2011 11:40:04 -0600
From: Andreas Dilger <aedilger@...il.com>
To: Ted Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
Cc: Andreas Dilger <adilger@...ger.ca>,
"Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@...ibm.com>,
Andreas Dilger <adilger.kernel@...ger.ca>,
Sunil Mushran <sunil.mushran@...cle.com>,
AmirGoldstein <amir73il@...il.com>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, MingmingCao <cmm@...ibm.com>,
Joel Becker <jlbec@...lplan.org>,
"linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org" <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
Coly Li <colyli@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/37] e2fsprogs: Read and write full-sized inodes
On 2011-09-04, at 8:04 AM, Ted Ts'o <tytso@....edu> wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 03, 2011 at 12:05:39PM -0600, Andreas Dilger wrote:
>> Why not just get rid of ext2_inode and replace it with
>> ext2_inode_large? Less change to the code, and less confusion for
>> developers.
>
> struct ext2_inode_large is there to make sure we don't break ABI
> compatibility for shared libraries.
What about renaming ext2_inode to ext2_inode_{small,orig} and then (optionally) rename ext2_inode_large to ext2_inode? That still avoids the code churn and continual risk of errors by developers using the small inode instead of the large inode, but keeps ABI compatibility.
Cheers, Andreas--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists