From: Theodore Tso Subject: Re: What's cooking in e2fsprogs.git (topics) Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2008 15:23:00 -0500 Message-ID: <20080225202300.GC8386@mit.edu> References: <20080211045107.GB25089@mit.edu> <20080219050945.GU25098@mit.edu> <47BC75A1.10605@redhat.com> <20080221140546.GF14614@mit.edu> <47BDA978.7060403@redhat.com> <20080222231434.GG3029@webber.adilger.int> <20080223001539.GD20118@mit.edu> <20080225042050.GH3534@webber.adilger.int> <20080225151339.GB8408@mit.edu> <47C2FBB2.30404@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Andreas Dilger , linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org To: Eric Sandeen Return-path: Received: from BISCAYNE-ONE-STATION.MIT.EDU ([18.7.7.80]:60547 "EHLO biscayne-one-station.mit.edu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756862AbYBYUYG (ORCPT ); Mon, 25 Feb 2008 15:24:06 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <47C2FBB2.30404@redhat.com> Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 11:32:34AM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote: > Are you sure? This was her patch comment, from > [PATCH] ext4: Don't set EXTENTS_FL flag for fast symlinks: You're right, I confused myself. > > But you do raise a good point that we need to support using the > > extents format in order to support blocks > 2**32, so we can't just > > arbitrary convert all symlinks to the old-style direct block maps. > > ... so I think we really *should* be unconditionally storing *long* > symlinks in extent format, on ext4... right? Yes, I think so. Being liberal in what you receive is probably a good idea, but we should only store new symlinks in one standard format, and the extents format makes sense since it will allow us to support 48-bit block numbers. - Ted