From: Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] Ext3 removal, quota & udf fixes Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2015 16:47:24 -0700 Message-ID: References: <20150831061920.GA2751@quack.suse.cz> <20150902165201.GW12432@techsingularity.net> <20150902184522.GA10390@birch.djwong.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Cc: Mel Gorman , Jan Kara , LKML , "linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org" , linux-fsdevel To: "Darrick J. Wong" Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20150902184522.GA10390@birch.djwong.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ext4.vger.kernel.org On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 11:45 AM, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > On Wed, Sep 02, 2015 at 05:52:01PM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote: >> On the flip side, there does not appear to be any good reason for >> keeping the ext3 driver around because if there ever is a case where an >> old kernel is required to mount an ext3 filesystem then it appears the >> ext4 developers would consider it a bug. > > Yes, that would be a bug. So the thing I'm happy to see is that the ext4 developers seem to unanimously agree that maintaining ext3 compatibility is part of their job, and nobody seems to be arguing for keeping ext3 around. As long as any possible regressions from ext3 removal have a clear "yup, it's on us" from the ext4 people, I don't mind removing it. I was expecting ext4 people to not be thrilled about supporting possible legacy cases. As a result, I'm personally convinced. I'll get around to the filesystem pulls tomorrow unless something unexpected happens, and expect to pull Jan's ext3-removal tree unless somebody suddenly speaks up. Thanks, Linus