Re: NFS locking bug -- limited mtime resolution means nfs_lock() does not provide coherency guarantee

[Trond Myklebust]

>>>>> " " == Theodore Y Ts'o <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

     > There has been some talk of doubling the size of the ext2
     > inode, which will of course cause some backwards compatibility
     > problems and would mean that you would only be able to use
     > certain advanced features on new or converted ext2 filesystems.
     > However, there are enough downsides with this that it's
     > something of a last resort.  It would make life a lot easier
     > for those various people doing new ext2 features from muscling
     > each other over space all the time.

I'm sure the idea has been raised before, but given the above
paragraph I can't resist poking my nose into where it doesn't really
belong:

Would it perhaps make sense to use one of these last 'free' fields
as a pointer to an 'inode entension'?
If you still want ext2fs to be able to accommodate new projects and
ideas, then it seems that being able to extend the inode is a
desirable feature, but perhaps this overlaps with the apparent plans
for adding resource forks?

Cheers,
  Trond
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/