>>>>> " " == Theodore Y Ts'o <tytso@MIT.EDU> writes:
> There has been some talk of doubling the size of the ext2
> inode, which will of course cause some backwards compatibility
> problems and would mean that you would only be able to use
> certain advanced features on new or converted ext2 filesystems.
> However, there are enough downsides with this that it's
> something of a last resort. It would make life a lot easier
> for those various people doing new ext2 features from muscling
> each other over space all the time.
I'm sure the idea has been raised before, but given the above
paragraph I can't resist poking my nose into where it doesn't really
belong:
Would it perhaps make sense to use one of these last 'free' fields
as a pointer to an 'inode entension'?
If you still want ext2fs to be able to accommodate new projects and
ideas, then it seems that being able to extend the inode is a
desirable feature, but perhaps this overlaps with the apparent plans
for adding resource forks?
Cheers,
Trond
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Sep 15 2000 - 21:00:23 EST