From: Joel Becker Subject: Re: Proposed design for big allocation blocks for ext4 Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2011 16:33:20 -0800 Message-ID: <20110226003319.GD28214@noexit> References: <20110225215924.GA28214@noexit> <20110225234002.GA2924@thunk.org> <20110226000304.GC28214@noexit> <20110226003140.GB2924@thunk.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org To: Ted Ts'o Return-path: Received: from zeniv.linux.org.uk ([195.92.253.2]:50575 "EHLO ZenIV.linux.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932977Ab1BZAdY (ORCPT ); Fri, 25 Feb 2011 19:33:24 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110226003140.GB2924@thunk.org> Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 07:31:40PM -0500, Ted Ts'o wrote: > On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 04:03:04PM -0800, Joel Becker wrote: > > > We could add complexity to do suballocations for directories, but KISS > > > seems to be a much better idea for now. > > > > Oh dear God no. > > What are you saying no to? KISS or suballocations? :-) You know the answer to that ;-) Though if you ever do smoke some crack and design suballocations, ocfs2 will happily steal them. Jool -- "Only a life lived for others is a life worth while." -Albert Einstein http://www.jlbec.org/ jlbec@evilplan.org