Aaron Lehmann wrote:
> I simply was hoping for insted of:
> <*> EXT2 fs
> <*> EXT3 fs
> (which is required today for most ext3-using people who want to do ext2
> ... there could be:
> <*> EXT2 fs
> <*> EXT3 journalling extensions
> AFAIK this would eliminate a lot of duplicate kernel code for ext3
mm.. The filesystems could be pretty much identical on the reading
path, but they're quite dissimilar on the writing path. So the
reading-stuff code could be commoned up.
I don't think it'd buy much, though. They are different filesystems
and the fact that ext3 borrows a lot of ext2 code is a useful
consequence of it having the same on-disk format.
And the main reason for having the same on-disk format is not, IMO, to
ease migration between the two filesystems. That's just a once-off
activity. The main reason for preserving compatibility is so that ext3
can leverage e2fsprogs, and the wealth of knowledge and understanding
of ext2 performance and behaviour.
The ext2-compatibility seems to be a bit of a political albatross
for ext3, really - people appear to be of the opinion that the
ext3 design was somehow compromised by the compatibility requirement.
This isn't so - ext3 is a block-level journalled filesystem. It
could have been based on minixfs, UFS, sysvfs, etc. Or it could
have been something altogether new. But I can't think of any benefit
in changing the on-disk format from its current ext2ness.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to email@example.com
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Sep 30 2001 - 21:00:17 EST