linux-kernel - Re: ext2, ext3, ext4 config headlines inconsistent:

lists.openwall.net		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 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <87abd45oxo.fsf@basilikum.skogtun.org>
Date:	Thu, 16 Oct 2008 21:18:27 +0200
From:	Harald Arnesen <skogtun.harald@...il.com>
To:	Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>
Cc:	Roland Dreier <rdreier@...co.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: ext2, ext3, ext4 config headlines inconsistent:

Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu> writes:

> On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 11:37:23AM -0700, Roland Dreier wrote:
>> Hi Ted,
>> 
>> While running an oldconfig with the new kernel, I got the following prompt:
>> 
>>     Second extended fs support (EXT2_FS) [N/m/y/?] n
>>     Ext3 journalling file system support (EXT3_FS) [N/m/y/?] n
>>     The Extended 4 (ext4) filesystem (EXT4_FS) [N/m/y/?] (NEW) n
>> 
>> the lack of parallelism in the headline prompts is a little jarring.
>> Any interest in a patch to make this look uniform, or is it not worth
>> it?  If you are interested, which variant do you prefer?
>
> I'll note that we don't have consistency across all of the entries in
> fs/Kconfig, not just ext2/ext3/ext4.  If it were just up to me I'd
> probably prefer:
>
>     Ext2 file system support (EXT2_FS) [N/m/y/?] n
>     Ext3 file system support (EXT3_FS) [N/m/y/?] n
>     Ext4 file system support (EXT4_FS) [N/m/y/?] (NEW) n
>
> ... but it might be worth looking at the other entries in fs/Kconfig
> as well.

Something completely different - Documentation/filesystems/ext4:

  - When comparing performance with other filesystems, remember that
    ext3/4 by default offers higher data integrity guarantees than most.
    So when comparing with a metadata-only journalling filesystem, such
    as ext3, use `mount -o data=writeback'.  And you might as well use
       ^^^^
    `mount -o nobh' too along with it.  Making the journal larger than
    the mke2fs default often helps performance with metadata-intensive
    workloads.

Anything _but_ ext3 here?
-- 
Hilsen Harald.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/