Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <1323459733.69859.1566234633793.JavaMail.zimbra@nod.at>
 <20190819204504.GB10075@hsiangkao-HP-ZHAN-66-Pro-G1> <CAFLxGvxr2UMeVa29M9pjLtWMFPz7w6udRV38CRxEF1moyA9_Rw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20190821220251.GA3954@hsiangkao-HP-ZHAN-66-Pro-G1> <CAFLxGvzLPgD22pVOV_jz1EvC-c7YU_2dEFbBt4q08bSkZ3U0Dg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20190822142142.GB2730@mit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <20190822142142.GB2730@mit.edu>
From:   Richard Weinberger <richard.weinberger@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 22 Aug 2019 16:29:44 +0200
Message-ID: <CAFLxGvzGEBH2Z+Bpv68OMeLR1JH0pe6bHn6P-sBG+epLTXbR6w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: erofs: Question on unused fields in on-disk structs
To:     "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>,
        Richard Weinberger <richard.weinberger@gmail.com>,
        Gao Xiang <hsiangkao@aol.com>,
        Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-erofs@lists.ozlabs.org,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 4:21 PM Theodore Y. Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu> wrote:
> It might make life easier for other kernel developers if "features"
> was named "compat_features" and "requirements" were named
> "incompat_features", just because of the long-standing use of that in
> ext2, ext3, ext4, ocfs2, etc.  But that naming scheme really is a
> legacy of ext2 and its descendents, and there's no real reason why it
> has to be that way on other file systems.

Yes, the naming confused me a little. :-)

-- 
Thanks,
//richard