On 03/27/2012 08:13 AM, manjunatha wrote:
Dear Rob Herring/ Wolfgang,
As discussed in earlier mail chain, our current ext4 implementation is capable enough to list(ls) and read(load) ext2 partitons as well.
Also the current ext4 implementation is optimized to 7-8 times greater read throughput than ext2load.
Cool. IIRC, there was just recently some discussion on the list about ext2 performance problems.
I propose that we can remove the existing ext2 code and let it be replaced with ext4.
That's exactly what I proposed. Although, I think your patch should be done as modifications to cmd_ext2.c rather than deleting it and adding a new cmd_ext4.c.
All users using ext2ls and ext2load command can replace them with ext4ls and ext4load respectively.
I think you need to keep the command names to not break existing users' scripts. So either we just stick with ext2ls/ext2load or define additional ext4* commands which call the same functions as the ext2 version. I don't really care, but would lean toward the former.
Rob
The ext4 code is based on ext2 implementation and we have added the names of respective owners(ext2 code authors) in the file headers.
Please suggest what could be the best approach.
Thanks & Regards,
Manjunatha C achar
From: "Rob Herring" robherring2@gmail.com Sent: Monday, March 26, 2012 6:40 PM To: uma.shankar@samsung.com Cc: u-boot@lists.denx.de; "MANJUNATHAC ACHAR" a.manjunatha@samsung.com; kim.phillips@freescale.com; "IQBAL SHAREEF" iqbal.ams@samsung.com; "HAKGOO LEE" goodguy.lee@samsung.com; wd@denx.de Subject: Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH V4 1/2] ext4fs ls load support
On 03/26/2012 02:24 AM, UMA SHANKAR wrote:
Dear Rob Herring, Thanks for evaluating and testing our code. Currently, Our ext4 implementation is capable of listing and reading (ls and load) ext2 partitions as well. But, we wanted the ext4 code to be separate from ext2 implementation.
Why?
Your comment: --- Using ext2 commands on an ext4 partition will hang now.
ext2load command will only read ext2 partitions, and will definitely not work on ext4 (even without our implementation).
I'm not saying it should work, but it shouldn't hang. IIRC without your patch, it would return with an error. So you have changed something in the core ext2 code that makes it hang. But it's not something I think you need to worry about as the ext4 version of code should just replace the ext2 version and the issue will go away.
Rob
So, I propose, we can let both these implementations be there in uboot under different CONFIG Options (as is the case currently). Thanks & Regards, Uma Shankar