[U-Boot] [PATCH V4 1/2] ext4fs ls load support

[manjunatha]

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.

I propose that we can remove the existing ext2 code and let it be replaced 
with ext4.

All users using ext2ls and ext2load command can replace them with ext4ls and 
ext4load respectively.



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 at gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, March 26, 2012 6:40 PM
To: <uma.shankar at samsung.com>
Cc: <u-boot at lists.denx.de>; "MANJUNATHAC ACHAR" <a.manjunatha at samsung.com>; 
<kim.phillips at freescale.com>; "IQBAL SHAREEF" <iqbal.ams at samsung.com>; 
"HAKGOO LEE" <goodguy.lee at samsung.com>; <wd at 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