Alan Cox wrote:
>
> > However, as long as that is warranted, I don't see any problem with 2.x having
> > a different disk format than 2.y. (As long as such is clearly advertised)
>
> And providing you can convert back and forth on the fly, either with a tool
> or kernel code (a tool like fsck doing it seems the most sensible)
>
> With ext2, you can make 2.2 and 2.4 fs's that 2.0 cannot mount, but the 2.0
> format will be read/written and left in a state 2.0 can mount by normal use
> in 2.2/2.4.
We leave it in a state that can be mounted in 2.2 unless you request that it be
converted. We are backporting to 2.2 so that soon even if you do convert it you
can
use it in 2.2. What can I say, users really want 64 bit support even in 2.2.
>
> That seems to have caused no user friction or upset.
>
> Alan
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jun 07 2000 - 21:00:23 EST