Matthew Wilcox wrote:
On Fri, Jun 09, 2006 at 10:30:06AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
And I'm not saying that just because it's a filesystem, and people get
upset if they lose data. No, I'm saying it because from a maintenance
standpoint, such a filesystem has almost zero cost.
One of the costs (and I'm not disagreeing with your main point;
I think forking ext3 to ext4 at this point is reasonable), is that
bugfixes applied to one don't necessarily get applied to the other.
I found some recently between ext2 and ext3, and submitted those, but I
only audited one file. There's lots more to look at and I just haven't
found the time recently. Going to three variations is a lot more work
for auditing, and it might be worth splitting some bits which genuinely
are the same into common code.
With extents and 48bit, you have multiple code paths to audit, regardless.
If applied to ext3, you have to audit
fs/ext3/*.c:
if (extents)
...
else
...
as opposed to
fs/ext3/*.c:
... non-extent code
fs/ext4/*.c:
... extent code
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
