SlackwareThis Forum is for the discussion of Slackware Linux.
Notices
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
And just in case the somewhat alarmist subject alarms you (and you didn't read all of the LKML threads), no ext3 isn't going away.
It's been handled by the ext4 codebase for years.
Despite the fluidity of the discussion, it looks like Linus has been convinced after all.
When I first saw this a few days ago it caused me some concern as I still rely on ext3 (and ext2).
But after reading the lkml I see no concerns at all.
ext3 support to the user will remain unaffected as far as I can tell, except that the identical function (regression tested, guaranteed identical function) will be supplied by the ext4 code base.
So removal of redundant code is about the sum total of the changes. Sounds OK to me!
Slackware's kernel config was still using the standalone ext[23] modules rather than using the ext4 module for ext2/3.
This is one of the changes I've been making to my local kernels for a good while now:
Code:
$ grep 'EXT[234]' config-4.2-custom
# CONFIG_EXT2_FS is not set
# CONFIG_EXT3_FS is not set
CONFIG_EXT4_FS=y
CONFIG_EXT4_USE_FOR_EXT23=y
CONFIG_EXT4_FS_POSIX_ACL=y
CONFIG_EXT4_FS_SECURITY=y
# CONFIG_EXT4_ENCRYPTION is not set
# CONFIG_EXT4_DEBUG is not set
Funnily enough, a week or so ago, before all this broke, I contemplated posting on the subject to ask whether there was any reason Slackware was still using the separate EXT2/3 modules, but decided not to bother as I knew what the answer would be -- "because we haven't needed to change it". Looks like the issue is going to be forced now.
His final word on it:
"On the filesystem side, the bulk of the changes (in lines of code) is
the removal of the ext3 filesystem (with ext4 remaining to support
ext3 layouts - but the separate ext3 codebase is gone)."
So it seems that existing kernels are fine and will continue to work as always and only new kernels will require a change to config. Does this affect all branches or only the 4x branch and at what point(s) will this change take affect?
So it seems that existing kernels are fine and will continue to work as always and only new kernels will require a change to config. Does this affect all branches or only the 4x branch and at what point(s) will this change take affect?
I assume that the merge window for 4.3 is closed so it will be effective in 4.4 (unless Linus decides otherwise). Of course older kernels are not affected and I see no rationale for this change to be backported. As for the configuration settings, they will probably change accordingly in the new kernel. Wait and see.
Last edited by Didier Spaier; 09-16-2015 at 02:04 PM.
Reason: Wording modified
Gah, I know I sound like a curmudgeonly old geezer saying something like this, but I feel like these days they change too much too quickly in the newer mainline kernels. I preferred the old odd/even system prior to 2.6.
Of course older kernels are not affected and I see no rationale for this change to be backported.
Is 'backported' the correct term here?
Anyway, I can't recall any situation when the code was removed from older version at the time when it was removed in the newer version. Basically it's not possible because of compatibility.
Quote:
Gah, I know I sound like a curmudgeonly old geezer saying something like this, but I feel like these days they change too much too quickly in the newer mainline kernels. I preferred the old odd/even system prior to 2.6.
Not that fast I'd say there are more additions than changes due to the hardware popping up all the time. But you are at least partially right, there are changes being introduced and from time to time the drivers (and other code) have to be updated. That might be a pain, for example if you learn based on LDD3, be prepared for your code to fail to compile.
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.