[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120227190916.GH1651@thunk.org>
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 14:09:16 -0500
From: Ted Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
To: Andreas Dilger <adilger@...ger.ca>
Cc: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
"linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
"viro@...IV.linux.org.uk" <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>,
"valerie.aurora@...il.com" <valerie.aurora@...il.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
"linux-ext4@...nel.org" <linux-ext4@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 66/73] ext2: Split ext2_add_entry() from
ext2_add_link() [ver #2]
On Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 08:30:34PM -0700, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> > I'd suggest folding this in with the following patch (67/73). It's
> > not clear from this patch why renaming ext2_add_link to
> > ext2_add_entry() makes sense and then adding a new ext2_add_link()
> > which calls ext_add_entry(). It doesn't seem to clarify much....
>
> Also, why is this being done in ext2, when it should only be done in ext4?
I believe Val used ext2 as a proof-of-concept, because the codebase
was stable (and Union Mounts has been in the oven a loooong time, so
that was probably a good choice). I agree that if union mounts is
finally going to make it upstream, this would be a good time to
support implemented for ext4, and to get the support into e2fsprogs.
BTW, one thing that I think would be a good thing to do while we're
making this change is to mask off the low 4 bits when looking at the
filetype field so eventually we can use the high 4 bits for some
future extension.
- Ted
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists