Re: svn commit: r341505 - head/share/man/man5
On Wed, Dec 05, 2018 at 01:46:54PM -0500, Pedro Giffuni wrote: > On 05/12/2018 12:41, Conrad Meyer wrote: > > The Linux model is that the current incarnation of the ext2/3/4 driver > > is named "ext4," and that's what Linux users expect. You can mount > > any ext2/3/4 filesystem with the Linux ext4 driver. For ext4, it was > > a result of wanting to keep ext3 stable while developing ext4 in-tree. > > (For a while, it was called "ext4dev"). ext4 is long-since stabilized > > and ext3 became fully redundant with ext4, so I guess they dropped it. > > From a linux user/marketing perspective you are right. > > Are we sure there will never be an ext5fs? I would hate to start moving > a filesystem in the tree every time a new release comes out. +1. I really hate it how Linux stirs things around, including naming, and I'd advise against it. Current name is fine; update the manpage and move on. We do expect our users to read documentation, don't we? ./danfe ___ svn-src-head@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-head To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-head-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: svn commit: r341505 - head/share/man/man5
On 12/5/18 10:24 AM, Pedro Giffuni wrote: On 12/5/18 12:06 AM, Kubilay Kocak wrote: On 5/12/2018 9:51 am, Pedro F. Giffuni wrote: Starting with FreeBSD 12 we fully support writing ext4 filesystems ... Seems minor but I think worth it for discovery/pola/obviousness, and a good time (early in the 13.0 cycle). We get a lot of user questions about ext*fs support on FreeBSD and pointing to an ext2fs man page also feels a bit weird. This has to be "fixed" through documentation. I will admit that I haven't been working properly on the documentation, other than trying to remember some details in the Wiki page. Happy to get/organise a !committer contributor to take care of this if no-one wants to pick it up. I will be glad to review/commit manpage changes that make things clearer. We should probably even try to document the format, as I recall we do for FAT somewhere(?). I had a first try at making the manpage more precise here: https://reviews.freebsd.org/D18445 I realize other places like the handbook still needs more love but we have to start somewhere. Pedro. ___ svn-src-head@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-head To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-head-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: svn commit: r341505 - head/share/man/man5
On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 10:47 AM Pedro Giffuni wrote: > On 05/12/2018 12:41, Conrad Meyer wrote: > > The Linux model is that the current incarnation of the ext2/3/4 driver > > is named "ext4," and that's what Linux users expect. You can mount > > any ext2/3/4 filesystem with the Linux ext4 driver. For ext4, it was > > a result of wanting to keep ext3 stable while developing ext4 in-tree. > > (For a while, it was called "ext4dev"). ext4 is long-since stabilized > > and ext3 became fully redundant with ext4, so I guess they dropped it. > > From a linux user/marketing perspective you are right. > > Are we sure there will never be an ext5fs? I would hate to start moving > a filesystem in the tree every time a new release comes out. While I think we can be reasonably confident ext4 is the last one, it's somewhat irrelevant. Linux isn't spawning new extN's at anything like the frequency we do releases; ext3 was current from about 2001 to 2008, and ext4 from 2008 to present. On top of that, there's no particular reason the source code location in the tree has to be tied to the name of the driver, or that mount(8) couldn't do the right thing given any "-t ext[234]" or "-t ext[234]fs". Best, Conrad ___ svn-src-head@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-head To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-head-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: svn commit: r341505 - head/share/man/man5
On 05/12/2018 12:41, Conrad Meyer wrote: On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 7:24 AM Pedro Giffuni wrote: On 12/5/18 12:06 AM, Kubilay Kocak wrote: Can we remove '2' from the module/man/etc name if (since) it supports multiple extXfs versions? Is there anything serious preventing it? You can currently create plain ext2 filesystems on FreeBSD and add ext3/4 features on top and it will work just fine. The distinction on linux about ext2/3/4 is rather accidental: they didn't master Version Control in time to branch instead of forking the implementation a couple of times. It also seems like ext3 disappeared. The Linux model is that the current incarnation of the ext2/3/4 driver is named "ext4," and that's what Linux users expect. You can mount any ext2/3/4 filesystem with the Linux ext4 driver. For ext4, it was a result of wanting to keep ext3 stable while developing ext4 in-tree. (For a while, it was called "ext4dev"). ext4 is long-since stabilized and ext3 became fully redundant with ext4, so I guess they dropped it. From a linux user/marketing perspective you are right. Are we sure there will never be an ext5fs? I would hate to start moving a filesystem in the tree every time a new release comes out. I think we should just follow that convention and rename ext2fs to ext4fs. We can mention support for the less-used ancient ext2/3 in a COMPATIBILITY section or something, if we don't already, but ext4 has been the go-to basic Linux filesystem for a decade. (Seriously: "On 11 October 2008, the patches that mark ext4 as stable code were merged in the Linux 2.6.28.") If we support ext4, call it ext4. We do support enough of ext4 that we could call it ext4 ... OTOH, the implementation is pretty much UFS1 plus ext2/3/4 extensions. I like it as it is because people looking at the code will find out exactly where it all comes from: we are currently doing no effort keep up to date with what ext4 does and we are focusing on compatibility. For now I think adding a link in the documentation as others have suggested is enough. My 2¢, Conrad Thanks! All feedback is appreciated. Pedro. ___ svn-src-head@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-head To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-head-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: svn commit: r341505 - head/share/man/man5
On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 7:24 AM Pedro Giffuni wrote: > On 12/5/18 12:06 AM, Kubilay Kocak wrote: > > Can we remove '2' from the module/man/etc name if (since) it supports > > multiple extXfs versions? Is there anything serious preventing it? > > You can currently create plain ext2 filesystems on FreeBSD and add > ext3/4 features on top and it will work just fine. The distinction on > linux about ext2/3/4 is rather accidental: they didn't master Version > Control in time to branch instead of forking the implementation a couple > of times. It also seems like ext3 disappeared. The Linux model is that the current incarnation of the ext2/3/4 driver is named "ext4," and that's what Linux users expect. You can mount any ext2/3/4 filesystem with the Linux ext4 driver. For ext4, it was a result of wanting to keep ext3 stable while developing ext4 in-tree. (For a while, it was called "ext4dev"). ext4 is long-since stabilized and ext3 became fully redundant with ext4, so I guess they dropped it. I think we should just follow that convention and rename ext2fs to ext4fs. We can mention support for the less-used ancient ext2/3 in a COMPATIBILITY section or something, if we don't already, but ext4 has been the go-to basic Linux filesystem for a decade. (Seriously: "On 11 October 2008, the patches that mark ext4 as stable code were merged in the Linux 2.6.28.") If we support ext4, call it ext4. My 2¢, Conrad ___ svn-src-head@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-head To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-head-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: svn commit: r341505 - head/share/man/man5
> On 12/5/18 12:06 AM, Kubilay Kocak wrote: > > On 5/12/2018 9:51 am, Pedro F. Giffuni wrote: > >> Starting with FreeBSD 12 we fully support writing ext4 filesystems > > > > Can we remove '2' from the module/man/etc name if (since) it supports > > multiple extXfs versions? Is there anything serious preventing it? > > > Bad idea: neither us or linux support the old extfs format. It is a > common misconception that ext3 or ext4 are different filesystems: they > are both extensions over the ext2 format and they were always intended > to work like that. > > You can currently create plain ext2 filesystems on FreeBSD and add > ext3/4 features on top and it will work just fine. The distinction on > linux about ext2/3/4 is rather accidental: they didn't master Version > Control in time to branch instead of forking the implementation a couple > of times. It also seems like ext3 disappeared. > > > > Seems minor but I think worth it for discovery/pola/obviousness, and a > > good time (early in the 13.0 cycle). > > > > We get a lot of user questions about ext*fs support on FreeBSD and > > pointing to an ext2fs man page also feels a bit weird. > > > This has to be "fixed" through documentation. I will admit that I > haven't been working properly on the documentation, other than trying to > remember some details in the Wiki page. One simple fix would be to add MLINKS for ext3fs and ext4fs so that you could refer a user to ext4fs. Then manual page itself already has a proper NAME entry, so infact hum, these links should already be in place, that appears to be an oversight. --- share/man/man5/Makefile.prior 2017-07-20 23:42:14.0 + +++ share/man/man5/Makefile 2018-12-05 16:23:02.923541000 + @@ -69,6 +69,8 @@ tmpfs.5 MLINKS=dir.5 dirent.5 +MLINKS+=ext2fs.5 ext3fs.5 +MLINKS+=ext2fs.5 ext4fs.5 MLINKS+=fs.5 inode.5 MLINKS+=hosts.equiv.5 rhosts.5 MLINKS+=msdosfs.5 msdos.5 > > Happy to get/organise a !committer contributor to take care of this if > > no-one wants to pick it up. > > > > I will be glad to review/commit manpage changes that make things > clearer. We should probably even try to document the format, as I recall > we do for FAT somewhere(?). > > Pedro. > > > > -- Rod Grimes rgri...@freebsd.org ___ svn-src-head@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-head To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-head-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: svn commit: r341505 - head/share/man/man5
> I will be glad to review/commit manpage changes that make things > clearer. We should probably even try to document the format, as I recall > we do for FAT somewhere(?). In addition to updating the manpage, perhaps also create links to it as ext3fs.5 and ext4fs.5? -Ravi (rpokala@) -Original Message- From: on behalf of Pedro Giffuni Date: 2018-12-05, Wednesday at 07:24 To: , , , Subject: Re: svn commit: r341505 - head/share/man/man5 On 12/5/18 12:06 AM, Kubilay Kocak wrote: >> On 5/12/2018 9:51 am, Pedro F. Giffuni wrote: >>> Starting with FreeBSD 12 we fully support writing ext4 filesystems >> >> Can we remove '2' from the module/man/etc name if (since) it supports >> multiple extXfs versions? Is there anything serious preventing it? >> > Bad idea: neither us or linux support the old extfs format. It is a > common misconception that ext3 or ext4 are different filesystems: they > are both extensions over the ext2 format and they were always intended > to work like that. > > You can currently create plain ext2 filesystems on FreeBSD and add > ext3/4 features on top and it will work just fine. The distinction on > linux about ext2/3/4 is rather accidental: they didn't master Version > Control in time to branch instead of forking the implementation a couple > of times. It also seems like ext3 disappeared. > >> Seems minor but I think worth it for discovery/pola/obviousness, and a >> good time (early in the 13.0 cycle). >> >> We get a lot of user questions about ext*fs support on FreeBSD and >> pointing to an ext2fs man page also feels a bit weird. > > This has to be "fixed" through documentation. I will admit that I > haven't been working properly on the documentation, other than trying to > remember some details in the Wiki page. > >> Happy to get/organise a !committer contributor to take care of this if >> no-one wants to pick it up. > > I will be glad to review/commit manpage changes that make things > clearer. We should probably even try to document the format, as I recall > we do for FAT somewhere(?). > > Pedro. ___ svn-src-head@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-head To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-head-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: svn commit: r341505 - head/share/man/man5
On 12/5/18 12:06 AM, Kubilay Kocak wrote: On 5/12/2018 9:51 am, Pedro F. Giffuni wrote: Starting with FreeBSD 12 we fully support writing ext4 filesystems Can we remove '2' from the module/man/etc name if (since) it supports multiple extXfs versions? Is there anything serious preventing it? Bad idea: neither us or linux support the old extfs format. It is a common misconception that ext3 or ext4 are different filesystems: they are both extensions over the ext2 format and they were always intended to work like that. You can currently create plain ext2 filesystems on FreeBSD and add ext3/4 features on top and it will work just fine. The distinction on linux about ext2/3/4 is rather accidental: they didn't master Version Control in time to branch instead of forking the implementation a couple of times. It also seems like ext3 disappeared. Seems minor but I think worth it for discovery/pola/obviousness, and a good time (early in the 13.0 cycle). We get a lot of user questions about ext*fs support on FreeBSD and pointing to an ext2fs man page also feels a bit weird. This has to be "fixed" through documentation. I will admit that I haven't been working properly on the documentation, other than trying to remember some details in the Wiki page. Happy to get/organise a !committer contributor to take care of this if no-one wants to pick it up. I will be glad to review/commit manpage changes that make things clearer. We should probably even try to document the format, as I recall we do for FAT somewhere(?). Pedro. ___ svn-src-head@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-head To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-head-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: svn commit: r341505 - head/share/man/man5
On 5/12/2018 9:51 am, Pedro F. Giffuni wrote: Starting with FreeBSD 12 we fully support writing ext4 filesystems Can we remove '2' from the module/man/etc name if (since) it supports multiple extXfs versions? Is there anything serious preventing it? Seems minor but I think worth it for discovery/pola/obviousness, and a good time (early in the 13.0 cycle). We get a lot of user questions about ext*fs support on FreeBSD and pointing to an ext2fs man page also feels a bit weird. Happy to get/organise a !committer contributor to take care of this if no-one wants to pick it up. ./koobs ___ svn-src-head@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-head To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-head-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
svn commit: r341505 - head/share/man/man5
Author: pfg Date: Tue Dec 4 22:51:13 2018 New Revision: 341505 URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/341505 Log: ext2fs.4: basic updates. Starting with FreeBSD 12 we fully support writing ext4 filesystems. Mention some features that we don't support while here. MFC after:3 days Modified: head/share/man/man5/ext2fs.5 Modified: head/share/man/man5/ext2fs.5 == --- head/share/man/man5/ext2fs.5Tue Dec 4 22:46:58 2018 (r341504) +++ head/share/man/man5/ext2fs.5Tue Dec 4 22:51:13 2018 (r341505) @@ -26,7 +26,7 @@ .\" .\" $FreeBSD$ .\" -.Dd January 23, 2016 +.Dd December 4, 2018 .Dt EXT2FS 5 .Os .Sh NAME @@ -52,9 +52,10 @@ kernel to access and .Tn ext4 file systems. -The +Support for Extended Attributes in .Tn ext4 -support is read-only. +is experimental. +Journalling and encryption are currently not supported. .Sh EXAMPLES To mount a .Nm ___ svn-src-head@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-head To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-head-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
