El mié, 06-08-2008 a las 12:36 +0200, Felix Zielcke escribió: > Am Dienstag, den 05.08.2008, 19:23 +0200 schrieb Felix Zielcke: > > Am Freitag, den 04.07.2008, 03:20 +0200 schrieb Javier Martín: > > > > > That was it. I will post no more in this thread. Do whatever you please > > > with the patch - I'll just request some more people from the GRUB dev > > > team to review the thing, instead of the tennis match we've had here > > > (and I appreciate all matches, even the ones I lose). > > > > I'd like to bring this topic now up again and yes I know this isn't the > > last message about it :) > > > > Maybe it helps more if I give you a link to the thread start on the > archive if you want to read through the whole story again ;) [0] > The last mails aboit this was only between Javier and me about which > flags should be ignored and which should be marked as supported. > Robert was the only one from the "official's" who commented on the code > and from his is even the last message about the topic actually [1]. > > I really think that it's a good idea. > For example currently there exists INCOMPAT_64BIT which only the kernel > currently supports but not the e2fsprogs. > AFAIK it's probable used for filesystems >= max ext3 size, the german > Wikipedia ext3 article says 32 TiB the english one 16 TiB > > Anyway if you use such a real big filesystem in the future even > for /boot then in the beginning the /boot stuff is probable at the very > beginning of it, but with the time you probable want to make use of it. > And then maybe update once the kernel which then probable moves to an > area which needs 64bit inode support or whatever this 64bit are used > for. > Then I think it's better to refuse to install grub to it (e.g. by > failing grub-probe) then people leaving in the uncertainness that they > may not be able anymore to boot this system. > > Ok probable nobody ever uses such a big filesystem for their /boot too, > but as Javier already said in the thread: There's maybe an ext5, ext6 > and so on. > > By the way: I suggest to rename ext2.mod to extN.mod, on IRC there was > already a guy who wondered why it says ext2 instead of ext3 which he had > and ext4 extents are now supported which will probable never backported > to ext2. > > [0] http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/grub-devel/2008-07/msg00008.html > [1] http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/grub-devel/2008-07/msg00333.html > >
Thanks for raising the topic again. If it serves any purpose, I'll say
that the last patch I sent ("version 5") is still valid against the
current HEAD (rev. 1798)
-Habbit
>
> _______________________________________________
> Grub-devel mailing list
> Grub-devel@gnu.org
> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel
signature.asc
Description: Esta parte del mensaje está firmada digitalmente
_______________________________________________ Grub-devel mailing list Grub-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel
