From: Mark Fasheh Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] vfs: vfs-level fiemap interface Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 10:53:05 -0700 Message-ID: <20080915175305.GS4563@wotan.suse.de> References: <1221331767-16870-1-git-send-email-tytso@mit.edu> <2EC8176B-0AFA-4B36-A2F5-E51753A576A5@cam.ac.uk> <20080913212903.GF26128@mit.edu> <20080914134859.GB21746@infradead.org> <20080914175810.GB13074@mit.edu> <20080915144948.GB16491@infradead.org> Reply-To: Mark Fasheh Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Theodore Tso , Anton Altaparmakov , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linuxfoundation.org To: Christoph Hellwig Return-path: Received: from ns2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:49106 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753143AbYIORxJ (ORCPT ); Mon, 15 Sep 2008 13:53:09 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080915144948.GB16491@infradead.org> Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 10:49:48AM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > I agree to you (or someone elses - don't remember anymore) suggestion > to put in more padding so we can add fields later. I strongly disagree > putting in features now that we neither have a user, nor a usecase or > testcase for. So, how about another 64 bits of padding in struct fiemap_extent? That could help cover future uses like compression, which might require another 64 bit offset field - we only have 32 bits of reserved space there right now. --Mark -- Mark Fasheh